Government agencies twice failed to act on calls for more research that could have helped Christchurch prepare better for February’s fatal earthquake, victims’ families have claimed.

The families say the agencies “didn’t do the right things” and missed several chances to identify high-risk areas and strengthen key buildings.

They say the first opportunity was missed in 2005, when consultants Opus urged Environment Canterbury to model a magnitude 7 earthquake “on a hidden earthquake source close – say 10km to 20km – to Christchurch”.

February’s earthquake was a magnitude 6.3 tremor on a buried fault around 9km from the city centre.

Environment Canterbury’s director of investigations and monitoring, Ken Taylor, said most of the Opus recommendations were taken up by Crown research institutes GNS and Niwa in a project called Riskscape.

Riskscape models the danger posed by earthquakes, tsunamis and other hazards across the country, but is not yet complete.

Jim Cousins, a GNS scientist who has worked on Christchurch earthquake modelling, said he did not think the Opus recommendation had been carried out. “If it had been done, I would have probably known about it.”

In response to an Official Information Act request, Environment Canterbury indicated it had commissioned further research on hidden faults in 2008, but was unable to explain what use it had made of it.

The agency said it “has tested the prototype Riskscape model, but has not used it to run risk assessments”.

Rachael Ford, whose uncle died in the February 22 quake, said the agencies’ response was inadequate.

“This research should have been done,” she said. “And if it had been, I think there would have been a far better mindset around preparation.”

However, Mr Cousins said even if the modelling had been carried out, a major earthquake might still have been regarded as unlikely and not planned for.

“It would have suffered the same difficulty as other modelling – it would have been given a very low probability.”

Ms Ford also claimed authorities missed a second chance to prepare for February’s earthquake, which killed 181 people.

After the September 2010 earthquake, GNS applied to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission (Cerc) for funding to carry out a study of hidden faults under Christchurch.

At the time a leading geologist, Geotech Consulting’s Dr Mark Yetton, told a Christchurch newspaper that money spent on “good quality, modern seismic surveys” had been needed “for quite a while”.

However, Cerc was wound up and replaced by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority before it had a chance to process funding applications. GNS’ resubmitted application was approved only after February’s earthquake.

Ms Ford said it showed agencies “just haven’t done the right things”.

“What they should have done, and what’s been done in other cities that have suffered earthquakes, is have the blind faults studied.”

GNS scientist Kelvin Berryman said the application had suffered “a bit of bureaucratic hurdles and go-slow”, though it had been “expedited quite quickly” after February’s earthquake.

However, even if approved immediately, the research might not have been completed before February, and would only have been indicative, he added. “We weren’t going to stop an earthquake happening even by finding out there were faults there.”

Ms Ford also claimed authorities had failed to create a detailed earthquake risk map of Christchurch, as was done in parts of California following a major earthquake in 1971. Such a map might have revealed that buildings in certain areas needed further strengthening or other action, she said.

Mr Berryman said that despite February’s earthquake, Christchurch was an area of low seismic activity. Limited resources meant detailed mapping had inevitably been concentrated on areas of greater risk, such as Wellington, he said.

First published in The New Zealand Herald

The Government will spend $11 million on consultants and $10 million on internal costs before they start building a new prison in Auckland.

Department of Corrections documents released under the Official Information Act show it is already employing 18 companies, including accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and British lawyers Allen & Overy, to help oversee the deal.

The 960-bed prison will be a public private partnership (PPP), in which a private company pays for, builds and runs the facility.

The Corrections Department’s own analysis say this may cost more than a publicly owned prison.

Corrections deputy chief executive Christine Stevenson said costs were high because it was New Zealand’s first PPP prison.

The consultants would provide “specialist technical advice” and outside scrutiny.

But the Corrections Association, which represents prison officers, said the consultants were “hired guns” who offered little value.

“They quickly work out what the payer wants them to say and they research to that,” said the union’s president, Beven Hanlon.

Ms Stevenson refused to say how much a public prison would have cost to set up, or put a figure on the prison’s total construction cost. Internal Corrections documents suggest it could be about $300 million.

PPP schemes overseas have been criticised for employing large numbers of lawyers, accountants and consultants.

The Haringey local council in London spent £24 million ($46 million) on consultants before it started its school-building programme.

Conservative MP Richard Bacon told the Financial Times this year: “It is clear that [PPP] has spawned an entire industry of advisers who have done extremely well out of it.”

Corrections’ business case says the costs of a PPP “will be higher” than those of a public prison, because private companies pay more to borrow money and need to make “commercial returns”.

The deal will be cheaper only if the company can run the prison 10 to 15 per cent cheaper than the department.

The Corrections Association said a private firm would “most definitely” make savings by cutting staff and wages, putting prison safety at risk.

Three consortiums, all headed by Australian security firms, have been shortlisted for the contract, expected to be signed by July.

The numbers:

• $11 million sum the Government will spend on consultants for the new men’s prison at Wiri
• $10 million sum spent on internal costs before the prison is built
• 18 companies employed by Department of Corrections on the project
• 960 number of beds proposed new prison will have

First published in The New Zealand Herald