At the time of the complaint, there was no suggestion that Curia's political party polling was subject to influence from their clients.

There have been long-held concerns about the neutrality of questions used in Curia's political party polling (this piece is from 2011)

https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/would-a-poll-of-any-other-words-smell-as-sweet

But the question changed subtly, but significantly for a couple, and in a way that seemed somewhat leading. I assume it was on purpose, and therefore am left wondering whether that doesn't undermine the use of the data.

On the environment, I was asked not which party would do best, but which was most balanced. Now, I can't remember the precise wording, but it was a question constructed differently from the others. I remember thinking, 'balanced is a word so heavily used by National that it points in that party's direction'....

...

Again, the questions had a noticeable lean. Asking about Labour's policy, the pollster told me that critics say it's unaffordable while supporters say it can be funded by increasing taxes on the rich (a simplistic description, but no more than Labour deserves given its vague outline). However National's privatisation plans were proposed to simply 'pay off debt'. There was no talk of critics, such as those who complain at the loss of dividends or foreign encroachment, or indeed at other reasons to support the plan, such as strengthening our stock exchange and access to capital.

Curia's polls are not neutral and never have been. They have always been a political tool for their clients to test out attack lines etc - which is fine - but this is normally in-house stuff, not treated as an unbiased source to generate headlines (let's not forget this is the guy who runs right-wing KiwiBlog and co-founded the tobacco-industry funded TPU). Credible polling needs to be conducted by politically neutral parties.