Sally Faisandier against The Post

Sally Faisandier complains about an article published in The Post on 10 February 2025 headed Critical Wellington poll shows backing for council ‘fixing the basics’.  The article is based on a Curia Research Poll commissioned by Better Wellington, a group that has been critical of Mayor Tory Whanau and the Wellington City Council. The story describes the poll as “damning” for the council, and says it shows clear support for rates rises capped to inflation and referenda on any major non-core spending above that.

Ms Whanau was reported as dismissing the poll, as it was commissioned by a group with a clear right-wing agenda. The story reported that Curia Market Research had received complaints about its practices and resigned from the Research Association of New Zealand (RANZ). Its director, David Farrar, said the poll was a random sample of 1000 Wellingtonians.

Ms Faisandier complains under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance that the response rate of the poll was low and could have resulted in bias, and this should have been included in the report. The story also did not say the proportion of people in each ward who responded. To say that a poll is “damning” and shows “clear support” for rates rises to be capped at inflation, would require 70 per cent or more supporting the statement, and this was not the case.

Ms Faisandier also complained under Principle (4) Comment and Fact about the statement: “There is widespread disagreement around the city about whether the council should be spending on projects such as cycleways and social housing.” It might seem true, because there was strong and negative lobbying, but it was not established that the disagreement was “widespread”, she said.

The Post stood by its reporting saying Curia had conducted polls for many groups across the political divide, and Mr Farrar had decades of experience. The Post was aware Curia had withdrawn from RANZ and supplied information from Mr Farrar about why he had taken this step. They rejected Ms Faisandier’s assertion that it was to “continue to be paid big money for running dodgy surveys”.

The story made it clear who commissioned the poll and included Ms Whanau’s response, The Post said. The online story included the poll questions and a more detailed breakdown of the responses.

The Media Council finds that the report does not breach any of its principles. The Post is entitled to report the findings of a poll like this, which is just one of many stories about the Wellington City Council’s performance. It prominently reported Ms Whanau’s scepticism about the quality of the results and her view that it had been funded by a right-wing group. It also included the fact that there were complaints about Curia and that they had withdrawn from the RANZ, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions about the poll.  The inclusion of detailed poll results with the online story also gave further detail and context. The Council notes that the poll information included the margin of error, but the Media Council did not believe the report needed to delve further into the response rate, as Ms Faisandier suggests.

The Council could also find no fault with the “widespread disagreement” comment or the suggestion that the poll was “damning” for the Wellington City Council. Both seemed reasonable given the poll results and the ongoing debate about the Council’s performance.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.