The Silver Review recommended major reforms to the governance of Victoria’s public entities. These changes extend across water corporations, CMAs and other related bodies.
Many recommendations were supported by the government, which has signalled that public administration will place greater emphasis on clarity of purpose, accountability and review.
This has positioned water governance in Victoria for a shift that strengthens oversight even without changing organisational boundaries.
- 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 governance problems did the Review identify?
The Review found that Victoria’s public entity landscape has become too complex. It highlighted inconsistent governance models, unclear accountability lines and boards operating with limited visibility to central agencies.
It argued that the system needed stronger oversight, more consistent assessment frameworks and clear expectations about when entities should operate with boards.
The Review also noted that some advisory bodies contribute limited value or duplicate existing departmental work. It is recommended that entities without a clear strategic purpose be subject to regular review or be discontinued. These findings apply to water and environmental entities alongside others.
How would boards and oversight change under the Review’s proposals?
A major proposal was to establish a default executive governance model. Under this approach, boards would be used only where they are clearly justified by risk, scope of work, or complexity. The Review recommended five-year sunset periods for boards, requiring each entity to periodically demonstrate its ongoing purpose.
It also recommended stronger establishment guidelines and clearer role definitions for existing boards. These guidelines would tighten oversight while maintaining boards where they add demonstrable value. For water governance in Victoria, this could influence future decisions on the number, size, and functions of boards across water corporations and CMAs.
Alongside board reform, the Review proposed a more coordinated oversight function for public entities within government. This included improved data collection, more consistent performance frameworks and greater transparency about board appointments and organisational outcomes.
How did the government respond?
The government supported many governance and oversight recommendations. It agreed to strengthen guidelines, improve establishment processes and enhance the visibility of public entities across departments. It supported periodic reviews of entities and accepted the need to rationalise structures when appropriate.
The government did not adopt the full sunset model for every entity but supported the principle of regular review. It also supported efforts to streamline complex oversight arrangements. This means that even without mergers, water governance in Victoria will likely face greater scrutiny and more consistent expectations about governance standards.
These changes sit alongside the government’s rejection of compulsory mergers. The decision maintains local board structures, yet increased oversight signals a shift in how boards will need to demonstrate performance and value.
What does greater scrutiny mean for water entities?
These reforms create a more structured environment for water entities. Boards may face tighter expectations about strategic contribution, risk management and organisational stewardship. Regular reviews could influence long-term planning and highlight areas where shared services improve efficiency.
Stronger oversight may also encourage alignment across water corporations and CMAs in areas such as digital transformation, climate responses and corporate service delivery. This could narrow capability gaps while preserving the local focus the government values.
The Review also pointed to the need for consistent data to assess performance. This will likely influence statewide reporting and comparative analysis, strengthening how water governance in Victoria is monitored across different regions and operating environments.
For water entities, the challenge will be balancing local responsiveness with these system-wide expectations. Strong governance practices will play a key role in demonstrating that structural stability can continue without further reform.