The Silver Review proposed some of the most substantial changes to Victoria’s environmental and advisory landscape in many years.
Among its recommendations were the abolition of Infrastructure Victoria, Sustainability Victoria and several specialist bodies whose roles influence water planning, climate resilience and resource management.
Government responses varied, yet the Review has raised important questions about how Victoria’s environment reform could reshape the policy ecosystem that supports the state’s water sector.
- Want more information on what Inside Water is up to? Sign up for our weekly email, landing in inboxes with the latest news.
- Do you want the magazine delivered to your letterbox? Sign up here to subscribe.
What environmental entities did the Silver Review propose to abolish?
The Review argued that Infrastructure Victoria’s long-term planning functions could be transferred to the Department of Treasury and Finance. It suggested that Sustainability Victoria’s programs could be discontinued or absorbed into existing departmental structures. It also proposed ceasing the functions of several smaller advisory or research bodies where mandates overlapped with departmental responsibilities.
These proposals were framed as opportunities to reduce duplication, improve administrative clarity and free resources for frontline services. The Review contended that some entities had evolved in ways that dispersed responsibility for long-term planning rather than consolidating it.
For the water sector, this raised immediate questions. Infrastructure Victoria has been a key contributor to statewide infrastructure scenarios, while Sustainability Victoria has supported programs that align with circular-economy targets, energy efficiency, and resource recovery. Removing or redistributing these functions could recalibrate how the government frames long-term risk and investment.
How did the government respond to these proposals?
The government indicated mixed support. It did not agree to abolish Infrastructure Victoria, instead recognising its role in providing independent advice. It also did not support abolishing Sustainability Victoria but did support reviewing its functions. Other, smaller entities were recommended for review rather than immediate discontinuation.
This measured response reflects the government’s preference for maintaining stability while entities play strategic roles, while evaluating whether some functions can be consolidated. It also suggests that Victoria’s environmental reform will occur selectively rather than through broad dissolution.
These decisions highlight the distinctive role that environmental and advisory entities play in policy development. In the water sector, many of these bodies provide data, modelling, and technical support that inform planning and investment decisions.
What risks and opportunities does this create for the water sector?
If certain functions are absorbed into departments, the water sector may see closer alignment between policy development and environmental planning. This could improve consistency across government. However, it may also reduce access to specialised independent advice that supports long-horizon decision-making.
Infrastructure Victoria’s scenario modelling has supported investment discussions across energy, transport and water. If such capabilities become more centralised, water agencies may have fewer sources of external analysis. Similarly, if Sustainability Victoria’s role changes, programs that intersect with emissions, energy recovery and community behaviour may shift their focus.
On the opportunity side, Victoria’s environment reform could streamline advisory pathways and reduce fragmentation. Water agencies may benefit from clearer direction, more predictable policy cycles and better integration between environmental and infrastructure planning. More substantial alignment across departments could also support coordinated approaches to climate adaptation.
What does this mean for long-term water planning?
The Review’s proposals and the government’s response signal that environment and sustainability portfolios will continue to evolve. For water planners, this means the policy ecosystem may become more centralised and more reliant on departmental capability. Maintaining access to the expertise that independent bodies have traditionally provided will be critical.
Water corporations and CMAs may need to adjust to changes in advisory structures, particularly in areas where climate modelling, emissions reduction and resource recovery intersect with water planning. As Victoria’s environment reform progresses, the sector will need to engage closely with the government to ensure long-term risks remain well understood and adequately planned for.
These shifts underscore the importance of robust internal capability. With potential changes to external advisory bodies, water entities may need to strengthen their own technical and analytical systems to maintain resilience in planning and decision-making. The Review has highlighted both the complexity and the opportunity in reshaping how the state delivers environmental advice and guidance.