Question Time

1. Is the Stuart Wilson depicted above the same Mr. Wilson who recently commented on two posts on this blog, as the director of "Lysander Research"?

2. Is Mr. Wilson still employed by the "NZ Parliamenatry [sic] Service" as Director of Research in the ACT Parliamentary Unit?

3. If so, in what way is Lysander Research an "independent market research firm", as Mr. Wilson claims?

4. What Parliamentary Services resources have been used by Mr. Wilson for the purposes of Lysander Research?

5. Can Mr. Wilson give an assurance that he has never undertaken any work whatsover for Lysander Research, including dealing with Lysander Research correspondence (electronic or otherwise), from his Parliamentary Services office?

6. Can Mr. Wilson give an assurance that he has not employed any information gathered in the course of his work at Parliamentary Services for the benefit of Lysander Research?

7. Has Lysander Research ever been paid (directly or indirectly) by Parliamentary Services (and thus the New Zealand taxpayer) for any work undertaken by it for ACT or any other individual or organisation?

8. Has Lysander Research ever invoiced or attempted to invoice (directly or indirectly) Parliamentary Services (and thus the New Zealand taxpayer) for any work undertaken for ACT or any other individual or organisation?

9. How credible is Mr. Wilson's assertion that he "did not realise that the whois information [for http://www.lysanderresearch.com] was pointing at ACT’s Head Office address" and that the Lysander Research website has "not been a priority for us this year", when he himself is listed as the registrant and the information was and must have been updated at the latest in June 2008 - to reflect ACT's new offices at "Suite 5, Level 2, 309 Broadway[,] Newmarket"?

10. Is the "former business partner" in Lysander Research alluded to by Mr. Wilson in his comment a Willie Seabrook, who is listed in whois information as the "Administrative Contact" for the http://www.lysanderresearch.com domain?

11. Is it a coincidence that the whois information for a domain owned by Mr. Seabrook, http://www.molinari.co.nz, records his registration details as 305A Remuera Road - the same address as Rodney Hide's former Epsom office?

12. Is the Mr. Seabrook the same Mr. Seabrook who wrote a positive submission in favour of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, a Private Member's Bill put forward by ACT leader Rodney Hide, in which Mr. Seabrook wrote "I am an IT Consultant who outsources lower value work to companies overseas. I dont [sic] do this because I want to but because for a one man outfit like myself I simply cant [sic] take the risk at [sic] employing a New Zealander due to all the red tape and regulations"?

13. What else do questions 9-12 suggest about the independence of Lysander Research?

14. Is Mr. Wilson a member of industry body the Market Research Society of New Zealand?

15. Is Lysander Research a member of industry body the Association of Market Research Organisations?

16. How ethical are Lysander Research's telephone interview methods and does it identify itself, when requested, as a polling company working on behalf of the ACT party?

17. To respond to a comment placed on the blog of RAM's Auckland Central candidate Oliver Woods on this topic, is the difference between this case and Curia Research, a polling company run by National Party supporter David Farrar, that Mr. Farrar is not employed by Parliamentary Services (and thus the New Zealand taxpayer) and is indeed completely open about his affiliations with National?

18. What is Mr. Wilson's response to the entirely reasonable suggestion by Oliver Woods, who also conducts academic research, that Lysander Research's activities could involve so-called "push polling"?

19. Was it a Freudian slip by Mr. Wilson when, in his latest comment on this blog, he began writing in a distanced tone befitting a supposed "independent market research firm" (e.g. "[w]hile ACT has contracted our services for this election campaign, we have a number of satisfied clients") but concluded in a manner befitting only an ACT insider (e.g. "ACT goes out of its way to provide access and data to researchers who are interested in studying our party because we are genuinely interested in the conclusions you will draw") [emphasis added]?

20. Is it really surprising that the newspaper article cited by Mr. Wilson and written by Ben Thomas, known to be an ACT supporter, and published in the National Business Review, known to be an ACT sympathiser, would claim that Lysander Research has "an impressive track record"?

21. If Lysander Research is really a legitimate polling company, why does it remain unnamed in the aforementioned article?

22. Does any of this remind readers of this week's revelation that the Electoral Commission has found ACT guilty for not declaring office space provided by Sir Robert Jones to the party, to the value of $20,000 annually for a number of years until 2005?

23. Does any of this remind readers of the 2003 scandal in which it was revealed that ACT had used some of its $500,000 of out-of-Parliament funding to actually pay for party research and marketing instead of servicing the electorate for which the money was intended?

24. If my work is "of a low quality and little more that an ill-informed rant", as Mr. Wilson claims, why have both the New Zealand Herald and the established academic journal Political Science seen my work fit to be published in their publications and why did the Electoral Commission award my dissertation a "highly commended" status in its 2008 Wallace Awards?

25. Why am I disappointed in Mr. Wilson's blanket criticism of my work and this blog, when other ACT supporters has been overwhelmingly appreciative of my free, objective coverage (to the point where I frequently praise ACT when warranted) and have brought criticisms only ever in a civil manner, which I am more than happy to accept and when appropriate learn from as well as - when warranted - make corrections to posts?

26. Is it a milestone to contemplate that on this Tuesday, October 28, my Douglas to Dancing blog will be one year old (meaning that coupled with the dissertation I will have completed some two years of research solely on ACT) and that unlike Mr. Wilson, I have not been paid a cent by either ACT or Parliamentary Services for my analysis?