WA’s peak civil construction industry group says a new Auditor General’s report should not be misinterpreted as finding fault with the alliance contracting model used on major State Government transport projects.

Civil Contractors Federation WA CEO Andy Graham said the report, Managing Fraud and Corruption Risks in Main Roads’ Alliance Projects, could create the impression that projects delivered under alliance contracts are inherently more prone to fraud and corruption.

“For example, the report refers to ‘the potential for contractors to exploit projects delivered through alliance agreements’ but doesn’t explain how this potential arises or why alliance projects would be more at risk of fraud and corruption than other government projects,” Mr Graham said.

“The alliance contract is used on major projects as a way of managing delivery risks – such as complex interfaces and approvals – that contractors can’t be expected to take on themselves.

“Yes, there’s a collaborative aspect, but that doesn’t mean contractors get an easy ride. Negotiations are as tough as on any other contract, sometimes tougher, and Main Roads has systems and controls at every step to manage fraud risks – as it does across all its contracts.

“The Auditor General found those systems and controls weren’t always followed, and Main Roads has accepted that finding. But it would be wrong to conclude that Main Roads is a poor performer in this area or that alliances are inherently more prone to fraud and corruption.

“As the report notes, Main Roads was in fact the first State Government agency to implement integrity data analytics and other anti-corruption controls.”

Mr Graham said the report states that the scale and complexity of major infrastructure projects make them particularly vulnerable to fraud and corruption, but a recent WA Corruption and Crime Commission report, Reflections and Recommendations on Corruption (June 2025), suggested the opposite.

“The CCC report points out that major government projects are inherently less prone to misconduct because of their strong focus on probity, while fraud risks can be greater on smaller contracts, where public servants are likely to have more discretion and be subject to less stringent oversight. And, of course, there have been some recent examples of this in both State and local government.

“Major projects are an easy target, but government needs to be just as vigilant at every level.”