Kerre Woodham: How can we take polls seriously?

Honestly, I don't know why we report on polls. Seriously, I don't know why I'm even talking about them myself, but it's really ripped my nightie overnight. They're so frustrating, and because media companies commission them, it makes the media look like master manipulators. 

This is from 1News last night (I didn't watch 1News, obvs) but this is from their website – both National and Labour have slid in the latest 1News-Verian poll, while New Zealand First have moved to their strongest position in eight years. If an election were to be held today, the right bloc of National, ACT, and New Zealand First would have 63 seats —enough to form a coalition— while the left bloc of Labour, the Greens, and Te Pati Māori would have 58 seats. So that's from 1News and their Verian poll.   

This is from Radio New Zealand – after the budget and pay equity changes, the left bloc would have the support to turf the coalition out of power, the latest RNZ-Reid Research poll shows. The preferred Prime Minister and leadership ratings are also bad news for the government, with the exception of Winston Peters, who's seen his highest results since 2017. The ratings of the government's general performance have also continued to slide, with Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Māori all gaining compared to the previous poll, they would have a majority with 63 seats between them, compared to the coalitions 57. A direct opposite of what 1News-Verian said.  

How can this be? And it's always headline news. You've got 1News talking about the right bloc being able to hold on to power, but only just, and look out. You've got RNZ crowing about the fact that the coalition government would be turfed out of power with the left gaining hold. And both lead with it, and it leaves me scratching my head and doubting both of them.   

How do you imagine the pollsters collect their data? Random phone calls of 1000 people? No, no, no. It's far more tricky than that, and they put it in every story. It must be an obligation on the part of the media company to say how the data was collected. From TVNZ: Between May 24 and May 28, 1002 eligible voters were polled by mobile phone (500) and online, using online panels (502). What are online panels? Are they things you sign up to yourself? Who knows? The maximum sampling area is approximately plus 3.1%. Party support percentages have been rounded up or down to whole numbers. The data has been weighted to align with Stats NZ population counts for age, gender, region, ethnic identification and education level.  

So what does that mean? If I'm a numpty, am I worth 2 points as opposed to somebody who leaves school worth NCEA and that's worth one? What does that mean? If I'm 18 and I respond, does that mean because there are fewer 18 year olds who respond, does it mean that my reckon is worth double that of somebody who's 50+. How can you weight the information? And not all 18 year olds think the same way. If you're looking at ethnic identification, not all Māori, not all Pakeha, not all Pasifika, not all Chinese people, think the same way. The sample for mobile phones is selected by random dialling using probability sampling. Online sample is collected using an online panel. So that's from 1News.   

This is from RNZ: This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between the 23rd and 30th of May 2025, has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1%.   

I'm of a mind to never discuss the polls again. The statisticians and the research pollsters and the companies all say, oh, no, no, no, it's terribly scientific. Is it really? When you've got two polls conducted over the same time, presumably using the same scientific methods, coming up with two completely different results. If the poll

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks.
He'd be.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Honestly, I don't know why we report on poles. Seriously,
I don't know. I don't know why I'm even talking
about them myself. But it's really written ninety overnight. They're
so frustrating and because media companies commission them, it makes
the media look like master manipulate its This is from

(00:35):
One News last night. I didn't watch One News obs,
but this is from their website. Both National and Labor
have slid in the latest One News variant poll, while
New Zealand First have moved to their strongest position in
eight years. If an election were to be held to day,
the right block of National Act in New Zealand First

(00:56):
would have sixty three seats, enough to form a coalition,
while the left block of Labor the Greens Antipati Mauri
I'll repeat that that's your other option, Labor the Greens
Antipati Maori would have fifty eight seats. Okay, So that's
from One News in their variant poll. This is from

(01:18):
Radio New Zealand. After the budget and pay equity changes,
the left block would have the support to turf the
coalition out of power. The latest are and Zed Read
Research poll shows the preferred prime minister and leadership ratings
are also bad news for the government, with the exception
of Winston Peters, who's seen his highest results since twenty seventeen.

(01:40):
The ratings of the government's general performance have also continued
to slide, with Labor, the Greens and TAA Party Maori
all gaining compared to the previous poll. They would have
a majority with sixty three seats between them compared to
the coalitions fifty seven, a direct opposite of what one
very News said, how can this be? Why are we

(02:05):
even and it is? It's always headline news. You've got
one News talking about the right block being able to
hold onto power, but only just look out. You've got
RNZ crowing about the fact that the coalition governor be
tfed out of power with the Left gaining hold and

(02:28):
both lead with it. And it leaves I don't know
about you, but it leaves me scratching my head and
doubting both of them. How do you imagine the polsters
collect their data random phone calls of one thousand people. No, no,
new It's far more tricky than that, And they put
it in every story. It must be an obligation on

(02:49):
the part of the media company to say how the
data was collected. So this is from TV and Z.
Between May twenty four and May twenty eight, one thousand
and two eligible voters were pulled by mobile phone five
hundred and online using online panels five oh two? What
are online panels? Are they things you sign up to yourself?

(03:09):
Who knows? The maximum sampling area is approximately plus three
point one percent. Party support percentages have been rounded up
or down to whole numbers. The data has been weighted
to align with STATS and Z population counts for age, gender, region,

(03:29):
ethnic identification, and education level. So what does that mean?
If I'm a numpty? Do I am? I worth two
points as opposed to somebody who left schoolworth INCAA and
that's worth one? What does that mean If I'm eighteen
and I respond? Does that mean because there are fewer
eighteen year olds who respond, I don't know? What does

(03:51):
it mean that my my reckon is worth double that
of somebody who's fifty plus? How can you wait the information?
And not all eighteen year olds think the same way.
If you're looking at ethnic identification, not all MARII not
all Parky, I think the same way. Not all PACIFICA,

(04:13):
not all Chinese. The sample for mobile phones is selected
by random dialing using probability sampling. Online sample is collected
using an online panel. Again, so that's from one News.
This is from RNZ. This pole of one thousand and

(04:34):
eight people was conducted by Read Research using quota sampling
and waiting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender,
and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between
the twenty third and thirtieth of May twenty twenty five,
as a maximum margin of ERA of plus or minus
three point one percent. I don't know. I'm of a

(04:58):
mind to never discuss the polls again. You know, the
statisticians and the research polsters and the companies all say,
oh no, no, no, it's terribly scientific, is it? Is it? Really?
When you've got toepoles conducted over the same time, presumably

(05:18):
using the same scientific methods, coming up with two completely
different results. If the poles were scientific, surely you'd see
a consensus of opinion. You wouldn't go sniffing like a
truffle hunter looking for respondents that agree with your particular
version of the way things should be. It's like you're

(05:41):
researching into an echo chamber. It's it's not worth the
time and the money. If this is what ARENZ is
spending their money on, given that they are funded by
the taxpayer, I'd rather they spend it on training up
young reporters or allowing a veteran reporter to spend some

(06:03):
time doing some investigative journalism, rather than coming up with
a poll that supports their worldview and which is in
direct contrast to the other taxpayer funded organization which is
kind of paying its way at the moment, which is
One News. What is the point? How on earth can

(06:27):
we take them seriously when they come up with completely
different results and when all the data is weighed, give
an extra waiting, quotas are taken, samplings adjusted. It's an
absolute croc. The Emperor is stark naked and shouldn't be

(06:51):
taken seriously at all.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings, listen live to news
talks that be from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.