The Herald reports:

A satirical song that poked fun at Prime Minister John Key was not an election advertisement or programme and it was wrong of the Electoral Commission to ban it, a High Court has ruled.

In a decision released today, Judge Clifford of the Wellington High Court found that the Planet Key song by soul and blues star Darren Watson was not election material.

Good. We need more satire.

Personally I think the Broadcasting Act should be changed so that the restrictions on election programmes should be lifted, so that parties and third parties can broadcast advertisements as they want – so log as within the total spending cap. Broadcasting as a medium should be on the same basis as print.

Andrew Geddis has a lengthy piece on the ruling, which is a good read for those interested.

The Washington Post reports:

Iran agreed in principle to accept significant restrictions on its nuclear facilities for at least a decade and submit to international inspections under a framework deal announced Thursday after months of contentious negotiations with the United States and other world powers.

In return, international sanctions that have battered Iran’s economy would be lifted in phases if it meets its commitments, meaning it could take a year or less for relief from the penalties to kick in.

The framework agreement, a milestone in negotiations that began 12 years ago, is not a final deal. But it creates parameters for three more months of negotiations over technical details and some matters that remain unresolved. Any one of those issues could doom a comprehensive agreement. Among them is the pace at which sanctions will be suspended.

While it is not without risks, I think this a good thing.

Most people accept it is highly undesirable for the Government of Iran to have nuclear weapons. It would set off a regional arms race, and considering how often the Iranian Government has said it wants to wipe out Israel, why give them the means to do so (even if unlikely they would).

So how to stop them developing nuclear weapons? Basically through negotiations or through warfare. My preference is negotiations. Having the US (or Israel) bomb Iranian facilities would radicalise the Iranian population (which is very different to their theocratic overlords) and probably just encourage them more to develop such weapons (as no one bombs you once you have some).

So negotiations are the better alternative. The current President of Iran is more moderate than his predecessor, and there is a strange “enemy of my enemy is my ally” thing happening in Iraq and Syria with the Islamic State.  If Iran can transition from a rogue state, to a slightly more mainstream state, that is a good thing – and a risk worth taking.

The devil will be in the details, and they have shunted those off for three more months.

The agreement includes almost all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear facilities, laboratories, mines and mills that the United States had sought in recent months, although it initially aimed for even tougher restrictions.

But Iran would get several benefits that may make the deal more palatable to politicians and the public in Tehran. It would not have to close any of its three nuclear facilities, though it would be left with only one that would enrich uranium — at levels low enough to create fuel for power plants but not high enough to create weapons-grade uranium.

The limitations would produce a one-year “breakout” period, meaning it would take Iran a full year to build up enough material to build one nuclear warhead, compared with current estimates of two to three months, officials said.

Many sanctions initially would be suspended, rather than lifted permanently as Iran sought, so they could be “snapped back” into place if Iran was discovered to be cheating, the officials said.

Iran’s apparent acceptance of so many conditions sought by the United States could give the Obama administration a tool to fend off critics in Congress who want to impose new sanctions to wring more concessions from the Iranians. The White House fears such steps could scuttle the talks and prompt Tehran to resume its nuclear program at full tilt.

It does look like Iran have made significant concessions. Again, this is a deal worth pursuing. The alternative of military action against Iran is a very unpleasant and unpredictable option.

The Herald reported:

A double-bluff on April Fool’s Day was no match for a woman who cashed in on a seemingly ridiculous luxury car trade-in promotion.

Tianna Marsh was the first person to try the unusual trade-in offer from the BMW Newmarket dealership today.

The carmaker said it was keeping alive a tradition of April 1 pranks with its front-page ad in the New Zealand Herald today.

The “April Fools’ Day special” promised a new BMW to the first person who took their car and the front-page coupon to the dealership.

Ms Marsh was first at the Newmarket car dealership this morning, arriving in her 15-year-old Nissan Avenir.

She was swiftly rewarded with a new BMW 1 Series worth almost $50,000 in exchange for the old station wagon.

Ms Marsh arrived at the car dealership about 5.30am, Team McMillan BMW sales manager Gavin Penfold said.

“It couldn’t have gone to a more deserving winner,” Mr Penfold said.

The firm had hired security guards, in case riots broke out or big queues caused trouble.

But it seemed most people who saw the ad couldn’t believe it, as Mr Penfold said other people seemed to turn up after Ms Marsh arrived.

“When I met her outside, I just acted dumb,” Mr Penfold said.

“She said ‘I’m here for the Herald competition.’ I said: ‘I know nothing about it'”, Mr Penfold recalled.

As the ad stated, Ms March asked for “Tom” and soon enough, she was a winner.

I wonder how many people saw the ad, thought it must be a joke, and are now kicking themselves?

Clever stunt by BMW. Heaps of publicity, and a clever reverse April Fool’s Joke.

Brian Fallow writes:

Should the Reserve Bank’s inflation target be lowered, ask the Bank of New Zealand’s economists.

The target band of 1 to 3 per cent, “with a focus on keeping future average inflation near the 2 per cent target midpoint”, is not, after all, Holy Writ. It was not chiselled into the back of the tablets Moses brought down from Mt Sinai.

The target band has been changed twice already, from its initial 0-2 per cent when Don Brash had the task of dealing to rampant inflation and high inflation expectations, to 0-3 per cent in 1996 and then to 1-3 per cent in 2002, with the explicit focus on the mid-point added when Graeme Wheeler took office in 2012.

I much prefer 0 to 2% than 1% to 3%. It says don’t end up with deflation but have inflation on average at just 1%, which is the best way to protect people on low and fixed incomes.

Stuff reports:

Police have taken too long finding the person responsible for threatening to contaminate infant formula with 1080 poison, Labour’s biosecurity spokesman says.

Labour’s biosecurity spokesman, Damien O’Connor, has slammed the police handling of the threat and says he cannot understand why police do not have more leads.

Asked whether police should have caught the blackmailer by now, O’Connor said: “Absolutely.”

“There’re two explanations,” he said. “One, [police] don’t have the competency, or the other is it’s a very sophisticated commercial plot.

This is a particularly stupid statement.

Does Damien think the Police have a magic wand that will show the Police who sent the letter?

The person behind the letter is basically untraceable unless they were rather moronic and put their fingerprints on the letter, licked the envelope etc.

My challenge to Damien O’Connor is to explain exactly how the Police should have worked out and proven who is behind this?

There are of course a number of likely suspects, but how do you prove it?

Police and the Ministry for Primary Industries “don’t have the resources to step in immediately to find this person”, he said.

As a result of the threat, all the extra food security put in place would inevitably have to remain in place, he said.

It is of course normal opposition politics to blame the Government for everything. But again I would ask Damien exactly  what resources are the Police lacking that would allow them to find out who was behind this? A magic mirror?

Today is the 1,982nd anniversary of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at Golgotha.

No matter what you believe, have a peaceful Good Friday and Easter Weekend.

Stuff reports:

Team New Zealand are fighting to retain the America’s Cup challengers series after it was taken off them in a raft of changes to the next event, including reducing the size of the foiling catamarans.

Cup bosses have done a u-turn and are now looking to race the entire America’s Cup in Bermuda, after a majority vote among the six syndicates signed up.

Team New Zealand boss Grant Dalton vowed to take that to the cup’s arbitration panel, believing they have agreed rights to host the series in Auckland – an event that is a key to their government funding.

Without the Auckland event and the associated economic benefits of having the teams based in New Zealand in late 2016 and January 2017, the government has made it clear that they won’t fund the team.

It is looking like it is all over for Team NZ. I don’t think this is an entirely bad thing. I’d love us to compete and win, but I just can not see it happening. There’s too much internal dysfunction, plus the rules are stacked against us. Time to move on.

Stuff reported:

The chairwoman of Solid Energy quit the state owned mining company because she disagreed with Bill English that the company could be saved, an email shows.

Pip Dunphy resigned from the board of Christchurch-based Solid Energy in February, less than a year after being appointed. Dunphy is a highly regarded professional director, sitting on the boards of the NZ Superannuation Fund, Abano Healthcare and the Fonterra Shareholders’ Fund.

I doubt it can be saved. It sells pretty much one product, and there has been a global slump in its price.

This is again a good reminder of why taxpayers should not own commercial companies.

In 2008 the global price reached $180 per mt. Today it is under $60.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Council will not be removing a controversial book from its libraries, despite a growing petition claiming it “advocates child abuse”.

The online petition, which has more than 2400 signatures, was launched on Friday by West Auckland mother Eileen Joy after she learned Auckland Libraries stocked a copy of To Train Up a Child – a 1994 book which instructs parents to withhold food and whip their children with branches and belts.

The authors of the book – American pastors Michael and Debi Pearl – also advise readers to use a garden hose on children who have soiled their pants.

The book sounds pretty terrible, but libraries should not ban books because some people don’t like them.

Auckland Council chief operating officer Dean Kimpton said: “Under no circumstances is violence against children acceptable or lawful.”

However, he said this debate touched on the fundamental principle of freedom of expression and it was a matter that would be referred to the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

The Classification office decide if a publication is legal or not. Not libraries – or Ms Joy.

Those who have been borrowing the book may be doing so, for critical research purposes. Or they may just want to hear different views. I have no times for busy bodies who think they should decide for everyone else what they should be allowed to read.

The Herald reports:

Susan Burdett’s brother wants police to reopen the inquiry into her murder in 1992.

“Basically, Teina Pora did not kill my sister, but somebody did. The police should reopen the case and find out who did,” Jim Burdett says.

I think we know who did.

He was responding yesterday to news that there is no plan to retry Malcolm Rewa a third time for the killing. Rewa – who is serving a life sentence for raping Ms Burdett and 24 other women – and Mr Pora are the only people who have been charged with the rape and murder of the 39-year-old. …

Rewa was convicted at a second trial in 1998 of raping Ms Burdett but juries in two trials could not decide whether he murdered her.

Rewa attempted to explain the presence of his DNA in her body by claiming he was having an affair with her.

Yeah, right.

If Rewa was not already in for life, with no chance of parole, I’d say charge him again. But a successful prosecution would be difficult to achieve, and with him already in prison, would not change things a lot.

Stuff reports:

Lufthansa has admitted for the first time it knew Andreas Lubitz, the German co-pilot who deliberately crashed a passenger jet in the Alps, suffered from serious depression. The airline had previously confirmed that Lubitz had taken an extended break from training, but refused to say why. …

Lufthansa, Germanwings’ parent company, last night admitted that Lubitz had told the airline’s flight training school that he suffered a serious episode of depression in 2009, citing emails between the pilot and the flight school.

German prosecutors said on Monday (local time) that Lubitz’s medical files show he underwent a prolonged course of therapy for “suicidal tendencies” before getting his pilot’s licence.

Lufthansa did not comment on his suicidal tendencies yesterday, but has previously said that German confidentiality rules meant that the company had no knowledge of Lubitz’s medical records.

Watch the law suits start to fly now – and with good reason.

It is becoming clear this was not an unpreventable tragedy.

A guest post by David Garrett:

Highest second strike sentence show law is working exactly as intended

Left leaning pundits have reacted with glee to two recent cases in which Judges have invoked the “manifestly unjust” provision in the “three strikes” (3S) law to avoid what would otherwise have been a sentence of life without parole (LWOP) for two second strikers convicted of murder. I doubt they will say much about Hugh Hemi Tuatua Tareha, who yesterday received the longest “second strike” sentence yet – 12 years nine months –  for sexually assaulting an 87 year old woman.

Tareha is pretty much the epitome of the type of offender 3S was intended to take out of circulation – a violent offender with a lengthy history who has a propensity for sexually attacking elderly women. A propensity which – according to a psychiatric report – is “escalating”, a view which the Probation Service shares.

His most recent offence was not just committed while on parole, but the day after  he had appeared before the Parole Board, which wanted to monitor his progress. At that appearance he fooled the Parole Board a second time – the first was when he was released a year into a sentence of three years nine months for the robbery of an elderly woman because the Board believed he could be “managed in the community”.

At his appearance on  6 November last Tareha, according to media reports,  convinced the Parole Board that he was, “motivated to make changes”. He was warned that he must not take either illegal drugs or synthetic cannabis, and his parole conditions were varied to that effect.

By 10.30 am the very  next day, Tareha was high on alcohol and synthetic cannabis, and attacked his latest victim.  As she weeded her front lawn, Tareha grabbed her as she tried to flee inside her house. He followed her inside where she was “forcefully violated” on the floor of her own home.

 The woman suffered severe bruising, including from kicks administered by Tareha before he left. That same day Tareha talked his way into a 73 year old woman’s house and asked for a “kiss and cuddle”. She persuaded him to leave, and he indecently assaulted her as he brushed past her on his way out.

At trial the Crown sought Preventive Detention, an open ended sentence with a minimum period before an offender can apply to be released. The Judge declined to impose that sentence “by a fine margin”, and instead imposed a  sentence of 12 years nine months – to be served in full because it is Tareha’s second strike.

It is important to note that if was not for 3S, this dangerous sex offender would be eligible for parole in four years, and in all likelihood be out on the street again in  six or seven. Instead, because of 3S, elderly women are safe from his predations for almost 13 years.

It appears Tareha has “mental health issues” which, according to the Judge may not have been adequately addressed during his numerous prior sentences. That may be the case, and if so, the Department of Corrections now  has almost 13 years to make him fit to be back in the community. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

When he is released he will be 44. According to the crim huggers like Mr Workman, he will at that age have lost his propensity to offend. Sadly I doubt that is the case. If he reoffends similarly – as his past suggests he will – he will go away for 20 more years without parole for a third strike.

I genuinely hope his “issues” can be addressed in prison. If they cannot, and he remains a danger to elderly women, then prison is the only place for him. I am very pleased that he will only get one more chance to offend against elderly women before he is eligible for the pension. That almost certainly would not be the case if 3S was not part of our law.

I’m very glad we have the three strikes law and Tareha will have to serve 13 years, not half of that.

The Press reports:

Quake-hit Christchurch homeowners are taking insurer IAG and Fletcher EQR to an international human rights body. …

International lawyer Steve Patterson, of WeCan, said he lodged an appeal against this decision with OECD Watch in the Hague (Netherlands).

MBIE accepted a first quake claim alleging an insurance company breached human rights earlier this year.

The OECD guidelines promote responsible business conduct and observance is not legally enforceable. They do not override New Zealand law or regulations. 

This is a poorly explained story. There is no “appeal” to OECD Watch. It is not an international body that is part of the OECD or any multi-national governmental organisation.

OECD Watch is a self-appointed group of civil society NGOs. It can’t hear an appeal from anyone. It can offer an opinion on any issue it wants. But that opinion has no more standing than an opinion from any other group of NGOs.

Stuff reports:

James May and Richard Hammond are out of contract with the BBC, after declining to sign new deals to present the next series of Top Gear.

The pair are now free agents, meaning rival broadcasters can approach them with job offers.

The three of them together will be a very lucrative package.

It won’t be called Top Gear, but a motoring show with them will appear somewhere.

Well justice has been wise this time, and Lundy is again found guilty. His original trial got him a 17 year non parole period. This one got him 20 years non parole. And far from likely he’d even get out after 20 years considering he won’t admit his guilt.

Stuff reports:

Crown prosecutor Philip Morgan managed to sum up those years of Lundy’s life during his closing address to the retrial jury. If Lundy did not kill his wife of 17 years and their 7-year-old daughter, “he would have to be the unluckiest man in the world”.

Lundy claimed he was that man, despite damning evidence to the contrary.

His claim did not persuade the jury, which found him guilty.

Anyone who sat through every day the retrial should not be surprised at the verdicts.

Always interesting to hear the opinion of someone who actually heard all the evidence.

He dropped multiple zingers, but one line struck the strongest: “No husband should have his wife’s brain on his shirt.”

Indeed.

Mike Yardley writes:

If New Zealand is serious about reaching the lofty aspirational summit of becoming “Smokefree by 2025”, our public health officials must pull the pin on their priggishness to the e-cigarettes revolution.

To date, their obstinateness mirrors the same sniffy self-righteousness that drives the zealots who rail against any form of low-emission household woodburners. A dose of pragmatism is critically overdue.

You may recall that a year ago I wrote about how e-cigarettes had proven to be the great circuit-breaker, unshackling me from my 20-year long, turbulent and intimate tobacco relationship.

A year on, an ever increasing number of my mates and colleagues are testament to the same break-free success, after having failed to do so, through the cessation cornucopia of gum, patches, hypnosis, Champix . . . the works. Some have now gone the whole hog, first substituting tobacco smoking for vaping (inhaling e-cigarette vapour), but are now vape-free, too. In a classic case of horses for courses, e-cigarettes changed their lives.

So this is a first hand recital of how e-cigarettes have helped Yardley quit smoking. However it is still illegal to sell them in NZ, while tobacco is legal. Madness.

Last year, ASH demonised e-cigarettes as the “alcopops of the smoking world”, despite there being no credible evidence that the product is alluring to teenagers. It was sensationalist, sticky-beaked scare-mongering.

One of New Zealand’s leading smoke-free crusaders has taken a far more responsive and realistic approach. Dr Murray Laugesen has been urging the Ministry of Health to stop faffing about over e-fags and formally recognise the product has a positive role to play.

Under New Zealand law, users have to import liquid nicotine for personal use, from overseas websites, and local outlets who have violated this restriction are being prosecuted. Laugeson is pressing the Health Ministry to allow the nicotine for e-cigarettes to be legally sold by our retailers.

On Friday, Laugesen’s latest compelling study was published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, which illustrates that e-cigarettes vapour contains a fraction of the toxins of tobacco smoke and far less nicotine. Laugesen’s study reaffirms they don’t cause cancer or kill people.

The Government should listen to Laugeson.

Trade Me have published their 2014 transparency report detailing requests for information from Government agencies.

The requests in 2014 were:

1. IRD 44,638 (info on no of members rather than individual inquiries)
2. Police 1,663 (+80 from 2013)
3. Disputes Tribunal 478 (+32)
4. MBIE 181 (-88)
5. MPI 89 (+19)
6. MSD 76 (-83)
7. IRD 62 (+11)
8. Commerce Commission 29 (-19)
9. ACC 28 (-15)
10. SIS 28 (+15)
11. Customs 26 (-14)
12. NZDF 24 (+16)
13. NZTA 17 (+3)
14. Medsafe 14 (+8)
15. DIA 12 (-10)
16. EQC 7 (-16)
17. DOC 7 (-9)
18. SPCA 7 (-3)
19. MCH 6 (-2)
20. EPA 3 (+2)
21. Corrections 2 (-1)
22. REAA 2 (nc)

Good on Trade Me for being open about who they are getting requests from, and how many.

Yahoo reports:

We’re on the cusp of the next generation of warfare, with killer robots to be discussed at Canterbury University this week.

A forum will assess pros and cons of robots’ involvement in conflict, ranging from drones to foot-soldiers.

Hitlab doctoral student Sean Welsh told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking one advantage robots have over humans, is they don’t feel emotions.

“If you send a robot over the top it’s not going to care about being shot, so it can wait to be shot at before shooting back, which is not what humans are prepared to do.”

Experts are discussing views on robots’ involvement in conflict at Canterbury University this week.

Welsh says it goes beyond just war, and technology may have prevented co-pilot Andreas Lubitz steering the plane into the mountain.

“Would’ve been nice if the plane had said to the pilot, ‘I’m sorry Fritz, I can’t let you do that’.”

Should the auto-pilot be able to over-rule the pilot?

For advocates of binding referenda, consider this story from The Atlantic:

California has always done democracy a bit differently than most other states. Every other year, voters in the Golden State cast ballots not just for people to represent them, but for many of the actual laws that govern them. It’s not quite the ancient Athenian model of citizens gathering on a hill to make decisions, but it’s a version of direct democracy deeply-embedded in California’s political culture. Over the years, voters have answered for themselves weighty questions of taxation, same-sex marriage, election laws, and the legalization of marijuana, among many others.

Yet that system is now facing something of a threat from an attorney named Matthew McLaughlin, who wants to use the ballot initiative to authorize the mass murder of gays and lesbians. He has formally proposed the Sodomite Suppression Act, which refers to homosexuality as “a monstrous evil” and an “abominable crime against nature.” It would ban communicating messages of tolerance to minors; bar gays and lesbians, or anyone who voices acceptance, from holding government jobs or public office; and authorize mass murder

His specific proposition:

the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.

I suspect he is deeply repressed. At a minimum he is deeply fucked up.

The fear isn’t that McLaughlin’s proposal would ever pass—he is highly unlikely to secure anywhere close to the 365,880 signatures needed merely to get the referendum on next year’s ballot, much less to secure a majority at the polls. And the courts would immediately throw out the law, as they have with a number of less extreme measures that Californians have approved. But the mere possibility that McLaughlin could get formal clearance from state officials to begin collecting signatures for a genocidal proposition is raising questions about California’s permissive ballot initiative system.

The NZ CIR Act doesn’t seem to have any prohibitions on questions, so presumably someone here could also submit a proposed question for approval, and then gather signatures for it.

Overall I much prefer representative democracy.

The Atlantic reports:

The national discourse about health and obesity has never been a particularly cordial conversation.

In 2008, it hit a tendentious peak when a ban on new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles brought the term “food apartheid” to the table. The ordinance, which was implemented in a part of the city that is both disproportionately poor and obese, came as a response to the idea that there are two different systems for accessing food in Los Angeles, one with more limited options in an economically depressed part of the city that is predominantly black and Latino, and the other with more variety in more affluent neighborhoods.

We often hear that if you ban bottle stores, fast food outlets etc that it will reduce alcohol abuse, reduce obesity etc.

The ordinance didn’t shutter existing restaurants, but it did block construction of new stand-alone fast-food restaurants in an area with 700,000 residents. (That’s a population that, if separated from the rest of Los Angeles, would still make one of the U.S.’s 20 largest cities.) The effort also dovetailed with an initiative to encourage supermarkets and stores with presumably healthier fare to move in.

So how did this ban on new fast food outlets go?

On Friday, the ban got a dose of bad news: A study released by the RAND Corporation revealed that the ordinance had “failed to reduce fast-food consumption or reduce obesity rates in the targeted neighborhood.” In fact, obesity rates in the area had grown at a faster clip than elsewhere in the city. As NBC News reported, the percentage of people in South Los Angeles who were overweight or obese in 2007 was 63 percent. By 2011, that figure was 75 percent.

The solution to obesity is education, parenting and determination, not bans.

Note that the increase in obesity in this area was faster than the rest of the city.

A guest post by John Hughes of The Norwood Resource:

Why do myths and misinformation drown information, facts and science in the seismic surveys and marine life debate?

The public deserves an open, transparent and honest debate on the issue of seismic surveys and marine life and the unfortunate issue of cetacean strandings.  However, possibly as a result of the major “vacuum” left in this subject area by the offshore petroleum industry, regulator and scientific community, the “green” activist groups like Greenpeace NZ feel free to mislead the public in pursuit of their objectives.  But what are their objectives, when they so blatantly ignore information, facts and science and instead peddle myths and misinformation?  Before providing a possible answer to that question, let’s have a look at some of the outrageous claims made by organisations such as Greenpeace NZ and their supporters:

1. The constant “noise” from Greenpeace NZ and its supporters is “eloquently” represented in the extremely misleading opinion piece published in the Otago Daily Times on 23 January 2015 (http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/330803/oil-search-puts-dolphins-risk#comment-67018) entitled “Oil search puts dolphins at risk”. There is very little, if any, valid evidence amongst the emotive but very inaccurate terms used by Ms Penwarden (and Greenpeace). For example:
2. The article says Ms Penwarden “links seismic testing for oil and gas with serious harm to whales and dolphins”. How can this be so if no credible documented cases of harm to cetaceans exist in over 40 years of seismic surveying (note the correct term “surveying”) using compressed air as the seismic source?;
3. Her description of seismic acquisition is so unrepresentative, using terms such as “detonators” and “blasting,” that are surely meant to mislead a caring and giving community. “Velcro” has done a good job of presenting a factual description of seismic surveying in an online comment rebutting her article so I will not repeat what he/she says.  However, I’d like to add that Ms Penwarden’s statement that seismic arrays “reach about 260 decibels (dB) on a logarithmic scale on which it is known that anything above 170 dB disturbs marine organisms.” is incorrect.  Firstly, she has used a theoretical value (of 260dB) for the sound level of a seismic array.  This would only be achieved if all the 20-30 elements (compressed air cylinders, commonly called “airguns”) in the, say, 10m x 15m array occupied the same location.  This is clearly impossible!  The actual decibel level within 1m of any part of the array would be between 220 and 240dB, depending on the type of array.  Due to attenuation with distance, there would be NO sound levels received from the array that are greater than 240dB.  Secondly, given sperm whales and bottlenose dolphins vocalise at 236dB and 225dB respectively (a lot more than 170dB), how can Ms Penwarden claim they would be disturbed, letalone “seriously harmed” as mentioned elsewhere in her opinion piece?  After all, these cetaceans (or others in their pod) would receive these sounds at close to their emitted levels whereas any received levels from the seismic array would be lower than their own vocalisations;
4. As a matter of interest, sperm whales and bottlenose dolphins use their vocalisations (clicks) to echo locate – just like the furry bats mentioned by Ms Penwarden. One is left to consider why she did not use this analogy – perhaps she is aware that sperm whale and dolphin vocalisations are at similar levels to seismic pulses?  See figures 1 and 2 in the linked article, which discusses whether seismic surveys prevent cetaceans from communicating.  It is obvious that sperm whales and dolphins continue to vocalise during seismic operations.  Why else would Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) be required by some regulators? (http://thenorwoodresource.org.au/2013/10/26/do-seismic-survey-sounds-prevent-cetaceans-from-communicating/);
5. She perpetuates distorted claims that the mass stranding of the melon headed whales in Madagascar was caused by a seismic survey. The Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) concluded that they “systematically excluded or deemed highly unlikely nearly all potential reasons for the animals leaving their typical pelagic habitat and entering the Loza Lagoon (an extremely atypical area for this species). This included the use of seismic airguns in an offshore seismic survey several days after the whales were already in the lagoon system, which was originally speculated to have played some role but in the view of the ISRP clearly did not.”  Surely this says the ISRP concluded the seismic survey “CLEARLY DID NOT” cause the stranding, even in Ms Penwarden’s language!;
6. She further strongly implies the 100-tonne blue whale washed up on Tapuae Beach in Taranaki was caused by a seismic survey. This is inconceivable given the levels at which blue whales vocalise (188dB – which would be equivalent to the received levels less than 500m from a seismic source).  Furthermore, extensive and detailed monitoring carried out in 2003 in South Australia (http://petroleum.statedevelopment.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/27149/epp32report_bluewhales.pdf) showed that blue whales are relatively unaffected by seismic surveys.  This is not surprising given true blue whales spend their summer months in Antarctic Waters where the sounds from calving/cracking/colliding icebergs have similar levels, frequencies and periodicities to seismic sounds. (http://thenorwoodresource.org.au/2013/10/18/the-antarctic-waters-are-certainly-not-quiet-and-yet-many-whale-species-feed-there-throughout-the-summer-months/);
7. Finally, she and Greenpeace claim that the unfortunate stranding of 3 Gray’s beaked whales on Whatipu Beach near Auckland in January was caused by a seismic survey, which I understand was 200km away. Given that strandings in NZ are very common and there is NO correlation between stranding events and seismic surveys, why are they ignoring the readily observable facts?  How do they explain strandings that occurred in the absence of seismic surveys, either before seismic surveys were invented or in seasons when seismic surveys did not occur?

Prior to this, during late 2014, the campaign waged by Greenpeace NZ was at best hysterically misinformed and, at worst, deliberate deception.  Greenpeace’s claims about the impacts of seismic surveys were and still are, so wildly incorrect, it surely leads most thinking people to conclude the latter (ie that they are perpetrating deliberate deception in the pursuit of donor funds).

Let’s have a brief look at some of their more outrageous claims:

1. Greenpeace claim: “These blasts are nearly as loud as the nuclear bomb dropped over Hiroshima“.  This is surely a deception of the most serious form as it ignores the facts and science.  As can be seen in an article already published on the TNR website, drawn from readily available information, comparing seismic sounds with typical sounds in water (and air), a typical seismic source is approximately 230dB whereas an atomic explosion is 248dB in air BUT 310dB in water.  Thus, an atomic explosion such as Hiroshima, is more than 8192 times louder than a typical seismic pulse. This is very different from Greenpeace NZ’s claim that seismic pulses are “nearly as loud” as atomic explosions.  Furthermore, seismic sounds are no different from many common natural sounds in the ocean, including humpback breaching and the sound of calving/colliding icebergs.
2. Greenpeace claim: “…even if it were dramatically quieter, the sound alone would be enough to kill a human“.  This is also totally false!  A human has never been killed by the sound from a seismic survey.  Humans work, relax and sleep on seismic vessels while the seismic source is activated.  If a sound as loud as the Hiroshima nuclear bomb occurred every 10 seconds near the seismic vessel surely humans could not withstand such noise impacts, letalone work, relax and sleep.
3. Greenpeace claim: “…whales and dolphins can’t hear one another or find food and in extreme cases, it could lead to strandings and death.” Again, this is totally false.  In over 40 years of using compressed air to generate seismic survey pulses there are no credible examples of whales and dolphins stranding or being killed.  However, this is not enough evidence for Greenpeace – they still prefer to believe it “could” happen, even if it has not.  Similarly, it is inconceivable that whales and dolphins cannot hear one another in the presence of seismic surveys as i) those species that do vocalise (eg sperm whales, dolphins, blue whales) are generally identifiable on passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) systems run during seismic surveys and; ii) many species spend the summer months in very noisy soundscapes, such as the Antarctic waters that, due to calving/colliding icebergs, have similar sound frequencies, periodicities and levels to seismic surveys.  Furthermore, species such as sperm whales use vocalisations (clicks) as loud as 235dB in their foraging for prey.  Thus, how can seismic survey sounds significantly lower than this sound level at the location of the animals (and their prey) prevent them from feeding?  For example, at just 128m from a 230dB source the received level would be 188dB, significantly lower than the 235dB at which sperm whales vocalise.
4. Finally, after some obvious hesitation, as presumably even their scientific advisers could not possibly suggest there was a link, they finally asked the question on their Facebook page if seismic surveying contributed to the very unfortunate stranding of over 140 pilot whales at Farewell Spit: https://www.facebook.com/greenpeace.nz/photos/a.417987320774.213959.11870725774/10153088845845775/?type=1&theater

In their response to some critical comments about their credibility, Greenpeace responded saying “We’re not saying that seismic testing caused the stranding but we are saying there is evidence that it could be harmful to whales and dolphins – and more importantly that there has been no research done by the Govt to determine whether or not that is the case.”

Again, this demonstrates how Greenpeace misleads the public.  The facts tell us that there have been NO credible cases of adverse impacts on whales and dolphins from the sound of seismic surveys in over 4 decades of seismic surveying using compressed air, and the science explains why this is so.  Thus, the so called claims by Greenpeace that seismic surveys ‘could’ harm whales and dolphins must surely be highly selective and ignore a 40 year track record plus the facts and science.

In summary, organisations like Greenpeace NZ surely have a responsibility to ensure that their claims are factually based and verifiable.  “Truth in campaigning” should apply equally to lobby groups in the same way as “truth in advertising/reporting” applies to businesses.  Unfortunately, at best, these lobby groups are either displaying a high level of ignorance or, at worse, they have deliberately chosen not to display the same high level of honesty that they themselves demand from others.

Thus, in answer to the question posed at this beginning of this article: “why are organisations drowning information, facts and science with myths and misinformation?”  It is as simple as the blatant pursuit of the donor dollar!

John Hughes
The Norwood Resource