Executive Summary

Wales faces urgent and complex infrastructure challenges, from climate change and energy transition to ageing assets and public trust in delivery. The National Infrastructure Commission for Wales (NICW), established in 2018, has proven its ability to provide high-impact, independent advice.

The current iteration of NICW spans 2021-2026. This paper should be viewed as a way of ensuring that Wales obtains the expert, independent guidance it needs from a future infrastructure body that can meet Wales’ current and future challenges.

This paper outlines a three-phase roadmap for scaling NICW into a statutory authority with responsibility for long-term strategy and oversight:

1. Enhanced Advisory Role (2025–28): Secure multi-year funding, expand staffing, and pilot a national infrastructure assessment.
   
2. Statutory Commission (2028–31): Establish NICW in law with a formal remit and governance structure.
   
3. Strategic Oversight Authority (2031+): Empower NICW to track and report on delivery of the Wales Infrastructure Investment Strategy (WIIS) and the Infrastructure Finance Plan.

Note that this roadmap provides the opportunity for Welsh Government to ‘leave’ the road at any point. Should a future Welsh Government determine that an enhanced advisory body (stage 1) provides sufficient robust and independent advice, there is no requirement in principle to progress further.

Strengthening NICW is a cost-effective investment. A 1% improvement in infrastructure delivery efficiency could yield £34 million annually, far exceeding the cost of expansion. Ultimately an enhanced NICW would allow the public to enjoy the benefits of improved infrastructure for decades to come.

Context and Purpose 

The National Infrastructure Commission for Wales (NICW) was established in 2018 as a non-statutory, independent advisory body to provide long-term, strategic advice to the Welsh Government on infrastructure. Its founding purpose was to strengthen policy coherence, enhance the evidence base for investment decisions, and help shape a resilient, sustainable infrastructure landscape for Wales.

In the years since its creation, NICW has demonstrated clear value despite its limited mandate and resources. Following a period of low activity due to the absence of budget (2018–2021), NICW re-established its operational capability under new leadership and has since delivered high-impact research and policy recommendations on critical challenges including renewable energy, flooding and long-term climate change adaptation. Its work has helped to influence wider public debate, informed government thinking, and introduced good-practice ideas from international peers into the Welsh context.

However, the infrastructure challenges facing Wales have grown more complex, interconnected, and urgent. From climate adaptation and energy transition to digital equity, ageing transport systems, and water security, the need for a more strategic, coordinated, and forward-looking infrastructure approach is pressing. This need has been underscored by the Senedd’s Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, which recently called on the Welsh Government to assess whether NICW now requires enhanced resources and statutory powers to fulfil its role more effectively.

This paper is our response to that request. It assesses whether NICW, in its current form, remains fit for purpose; and if not, what evolution would allow it to deliver greater impact and value. Drawing on the successes of peer institutions in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, and rooted in a clear understanding of Wales’s distinctive infrastructure needs, the paper sets out a roadmap for the Commission’s potential evolution over the next decade.

It presents three clear options for institutional development:

1. An expanded advisory authority with multi-year funding, allowing NICW to scale its research and engagement capabilities.
   
2. A statutory Commission with independence enshrined in law, formal powers to advise and scrutinise, and a mandate to deliver long-term infrastructure assessments.
   
3. A fully empowered strategy and delivery oversight authority, integrated with the infrastructure lifecycle, and tasked with tracking implementation and performance.

Each of these options is assessed not only in terms of feasibility and cost, but in light of the strategic value they can unlock for Wales: improved investment efficiency, reduced delivery risk, stronger alignment with national objectives, and better public accountability.

The core purpose of this paper is to provide a clear and credible case for the phased development of NICW, transforming it into an institution capable of providing long-term, strategic, cross-sectoral leadership on infrastructure for Wales.

As the nature and scale of infrastructure challenges continue to grow, so too must the institutions designed to meet them. This paper argues that time is right to invest in NICW, not only as an advisory body, but as a key strategic asset for Wales’s future.

NICW 2018-2025

The National Infrastructure Commission for Wales (NICW) was established in 2018 with the ambition of introducing impartial, systems-level thinking into Wales’ infrastructure planning. Its mandate recognised that decisions about infrastructure have far-reaching consequences for economic resilience, social equity, and environmental sustainability. From the outset, NICW was intended to be a trusted, independent voice capable of guiding long-term strategic thinking across government and sectors.

However, the Commission’s early years were defined by operational constraint. Without an allocated budget until 2021, NICW lacked the means to undertake research, build institutional processes, or engage meaningfully with stakeholders. Despite growing interest in its role, it remained relatively low profile during its first three years.

A turning point came in 2021, with the appointment of a new Chair and the agreement of a modest but crucial budget from the Welsh Government. This investment enabled NICW to begin delivering against its remit, and in the four years since, the Commission has proven its strategic value. It has:

• Published major, evidence-led reports on renewable energy and flooding, providing actionable recommendations that were well-received by policymakers and the wider infrastructure community.
  
• Engaged extensively with stakeholders from across Wales and beyond, including industry, academia, government, and the public. NICW has participated in numerous events, contributed to media and public discourse, and participated in scrutiny sessions at the Senedd.
  
• Introduced international good practice to the Welsh context—highlighting innovations such as managed retreat from flood-risk zones (as seen in the USA), and piloting pioneering ideas like “Nature on the Board” to embed ecological thinking into infrastructure governance.
  
• Established itself as a trusted, consultative body, with transparent working practices and a commitment to building consensus across diverse perspectives.
  
• Achieved high stakeholder confidence, with independent evaluations showing satisfaction ratings averaging 9 out of 10 across key dimensions of performance.
  

All of this has been achieved with a total of just 3.1 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff—1.8 FTE supporting core operations and 1.3 FTE distributed across Commissioners. The Chair has frequently filled resourcing gaps through personal time and effort. This underscores both the dedication of the leadership and the structural limits of the current model.

The Programme Office, tasked with delivering all logistics, administration, contracting, and stakeholder engagement, has consistently operated beyond its capacity. Activities essential to NICW’s functioning, such as commissioning research, drafting reports, managing projects, coordinating events, and participating in consultations, require levels of support that the current team cannot sustainably provide. This strain compromises NICW’s ability to deepen its impact or respond flexibly to emerging challenges.

The period from 2018 to 2025 should be understood not as a completed phase, but as a proof of concept. NICW has demonstrated that even a modestly funded, independent body can deliver outsized value in shaping infrastructure strategy. Its work has informed government thinking, elevated public discourse, and shown that independent scrutiny can enhance credibility and clarity in long-term planning.

But it has also exposed the limitations of an underpowered model. As Wales faces increasingly complex, systemic challenges—climate adaptation, energy transition, digital equity, water resilience, and demographic change—the need for a more capable infrastructure commission has become urgent. Infrastructure is a delivery mechanism for national well-being, environmental recovery, business development and inclusive growth. Without stronger institutional capacity, the government risks making decisions without the benefit of long-term analysis, coordination, or external challenge.

To meet this moment, NICW must evolve from a lean advisory unit into a more robust and permanent institution. A properly resourced Programme Office—backed by multi-year funding and an expanded team—would enable the Commission to scale its work, expand its research agenda, and act as a strategic partner to both government and the public. Our roadmap towards a statutory body provides suggestions for budget and staffing levels between now and 2030.

The case is not just about what NICW has done, but what more it could do with the right support.

Rising infrastructure pressures; drivers of strategic demand

Wales stands on the threshold of an infrastructure tipping point. A convergence of social, environmental, and economic pressures is placing new and intensifying demands on the country’s infrastructure systems, demands that current institutional arrangements are struggling to meet.

Key infrastructure stressors include:

• Climate Change Adaptation
  Wales’ infrastructure is not adequately prepared for the physical impacts of climate change, including extreme weather, rising sea levels, and increased flood risk. Resilience planning remains fragmented and underfunded.
  
• Skills and Workforce Capacity
  Skills shortages are already evident across critical infrastructure sectors, and demographic trends suggest these shortages will deepen as the population ages. Without strategic intervention, project delivery timelines and quality are likely to suffer.
  
• Coal Tip Safety
  A legacy of Wales’ industrial past, coal tips continue to pose safety risks to communities across the country. The estimated £500–£600 million required for remediation highlights the scale of inherited liabilities facing the Welsh Government. The creation of the Disused Tips Authority for Wales is a welcome step; its activities should be tightly integrated with wider infrastructure programmes..
  
• Flood Risk Management
  Traditional, hard-engineered flood defences are no longer a sustainable response. We cannot ‘build our way’ out of flood risk. Wales lacks a long-term, integrated strategy for flood resilience, despite the growing urgency of the challenge and concomitant implications for budget.
  
• Transport Infrastructure
  Road maintenance backlogs, climate-vulnerable railways, and persistent transport emissions reflect the pressing need for decarbonisation and system-wide modernisation.
  
• Water Infrastructure
  The sector has been described as “broken” by the Independent Water Commission. The 2025 Dolgarrog pipe burst—which left approximately 40,000 homes without water—exposed the fragility of aging systems. Although ground movement was highlighted as being responsible, the incident demonstrated a lack of redundancy in the water delivery system.
  
• Energy Transition
  Wales faces uncertainty in energy strategy, while contending with grid capacity constraints, slow uptake of heat pumps, and the oldest housing stock in western Europe. Maximising the economic and environmental value of renewable energy remains a largely untapped opportunity.
  
• Digital Inequality
  Persistent disparities in digital infrastructure access between urban and rural areas hinder economic development and public service delivery.
  
• Nature Crisis
  NICW has taken a leadership role in advocating for nature-based solutions in infrastructure planning. But this crisis remains acute, with no evidence of significant reversal in biodiversity loss or ecological degradation. Nature restoration can deliver vital co-benefits for infrastructure resilience in the face of climate change.
  
• Lack of true engagement with communities
  Current practice in infrastructure delivery is still typically based on compliance rather than attempts to truly understand and engage with local needs.

Taken together, these challenges call for integrated, forward-looking infrastructure governance. While various public bodies are tasked with sectoral responsibilities, Wales currently lacks a central, independent institution that provides oversight capable of synthesising these issues into a coherent, long-term strategic infrastructure vision. NICW is uniquely positioned to fill this gap, if empowered to do so.

The value of independence

One of NICW’s defining strengths is its independence from government departments. This separation allows the Commission to act as an honest broker; challenging assumptions, testing policy coherence, and offering evidence-led advice without political distortion. In a small governance ecosystem like Wales, such independence is essential for innovation, transparency, and trust.

While some may argue that existing departments or delivery agencies could address the challenges listed above, it is precisely the complexity and interconnectedness of these issues that make an independent, systems-level perspective indispensable. NICW is not a competitor to government bodies; it is a complement and a critical friend, bringing strategic foresight, cross-sectoral thinking and public accountability alongside a coordinated approach across regions to bear on the long-term decisions that will shape Wales for generations.

Alignment with strategic gaps

The importance of strengthening NICW’s role has been further reinforced by the 2025 Audit Wales report on the Wales Infrastructure Investment Strategy (WIIS). The report highlighted key weaknesses in ambition, strategic direction, and governance. 

Specifically, NICW could support a number of the report’s critical recommendations:

1. Enhancing Public Reporting
   The WIIS programme has received a ‘no assurance’ rating twice in 2023 and 2024. By tracking major programme and project progress, NICW could emulate other international comparator bodies in providing transparent reporting on costs, delivery confidence, and benefits realisation.
   
2. Measuring Strategic Outcomes
   NICW could offer independent, periodic evaluations of progress toward WIIS goals, providing consistent accountability and benchmarking against international good practice.

These roles are entirely compatible with NICW’s evolving remit and would significantly enhance the credibility and effectiveness of infrastructure governance in Wales.

Rationalisation of existing structures – Case study (WIDAB)

Established under the Welsh Development Act 1974, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning is supported by the Welsh Investment Development Advisory Board (WIDAB). The Board advises the Cabinet Secretary on business investments exceeding £1 million. 

While WIDAB plays a valuable role in offering expert scrutiny of public investments, its function is narrowly defined and largely process-led, with limited visibility into broader economic development priorities. There may be value in reviewing how WIDAB connects with other strategic bodies, including NICW, to ensure alignment, transparency, and coordinated decision-making across the economic governance landscape.

The quantitative case

The Welsh Government allocates approximately £3.4 billion annually to infrastructure investment through the WIIS. Yet large-scale liabilities—such as coal tip remediation and flood defences—remain underfunded and unresolved.

If NICW’s expanded scrutiny and guidance were to improve the efficiency of infrastructure investment by even 1%, the resulting £34 million in annual savings would far exceed the cost of strengthening the Commission’s budget and remit. This is a rare example of a public investment with the potential to pay for itself many times over, through avoided costs, better prioritisation, and improved integration and delivery of outcomes.

NICW could also play a role in helping level the playing field between Wales and other parts of the UK for infrastructure spend. For example, on a per-capita basis, Wales has seen less investment into infrastructure than Scotland for 35 out of the 45 years for which data is available since 1980.

Consideration of alternatives

Wales is not alone in recognising the need for long-term, independent infrastructure planning. Around the world, governments have established specialist infrastructure commissions and agencies to provide strategic advice, improve planning certainty, and enhance public accountability. These bodies vary in structure—some are embedded within government departments, others operate as independent statutory authorities—but all are designed to help navigate the complex trade-offs involved in infrastructure investment.

While no two models are identical, there is a clear and growing international consensus that infrastructure requires dedicated institutions to support evidence-based decision-making, system-wide integration, and intergenerational foresight.

Comparable International Models

Among the most relevant comparators for Wales are:

• Infrastructure Western Australia
• Infrastructure Victoria (Australia)
• Te Waihanga – the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission
• Scottish Futures Trust

These organisations differ in legal status, governance, and remit—but share common characteristics: adequate core funding, multi-disciplinary expertise, and the independence to challenge, scrutinise, and coordinate across sectors. Each receives an order of magnitude more funding than NICW, with staff teams and capabilities scaled accordingly. For example, the Scottish Futures Trust operates with 67 FTE compared to NICW’s 3.1 FTE.

It is important to acknowledge that greater funding alone does not automatically guarantee impact. Resources must be aligned to a clear mandate and deliverable outcomes. However, the contrast in scale between NICW and its international counterparts underlines the significant potential that remains unrealised in the current Welsh model.

What do these other countries get for their money? 

The benefits of investing in independent infrastructure bodies are already visible elsewhere. Consider the following examples:

• New Zealand’s Te Waihanga
  With an annual budget of £6.15 million and 43 FTE, Te Waihanga delivers a nationally coordinated 30-year infrastructure pipeline, aligned to economic resilience and climate adaptation goals. It is credited with improving delivery confidence, reducing duplication across agencies, and strengthening investment decisions.
  
• Infrastructure Victoria
  Operating with £4.5 million and 45 FTE, Infrastructure Victoria leads long-term planning and integrated sectoral strategy, including regular public reporting on infrastructure performance. Its work has helped shift investment away from low-return projects and towards evidence-based, high-impact initiatives.
  
• Infrastructure Western Australia
  With a £3 million budget and 20 FTE, this statutory authority produces a five-yearly State Infrastructure Strategy, reviews major capital proposals, and advises the state government on strategic priorities. It operates with a governance structure that safeguards independence while maintaining close collaboration with delivery departments.

These bodies demonstrate that strategic investment in infrastructure governance delivers far more than reports and recommendations. They enable:

• Greater certainty and stability for private sector contractors, supply chains, and skills planning—reducing costly stop-start investment cycles.
  
• Transparent public reporting on delivery and performance, enhancing public trust and driving accountability across agencies.
  
• Cross-sectoral engagement with government, business, and communities, helping to align expectations and unlock bottlenecks in delivery.

The case for expanding NICW

If NICW were resourced at even a fraction of the scale of its peers and given a formal mandate to lead long-term planning and delivery oversight, Wales could see transformative gains. A strengthened NICW could:

• Deliver a rolling national infrastructure assessment every five years, with integrated analysis of needs, risks, and priorities across sectors.
  
• Be the home of other activity areas, such as the Wales Investment Development Advisory Board, and potentially provide coordinated development oversight to the CJCs.
  
• Track delivery against the Wales Infrastructure Investment Strategy (WIIS) and the Infrastructure Finance Plan, publishing annual dashboards of progress, costs, and outcomes.
• Publish a pipeline to help infrastructure providers coordinate action, projects and training.
  
• Serve as a trusted forum for collaboration across public and private infrastructure actors, reducing friction and improving delivery coherence.
  
• Benchmark Wales internationally, ensuring infrastructure planning keeps pace with global best practice in climate resilience, innovation, and equity.
  
• Help infrastructure development better align spend with Future Generations and place-based outcomes.

Options appraisal; a pathway for evolution

The case for evolving the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales (NICW) is not a binary choice between status quo and transformation. Instead, a phased, strategic pathway offers a pragmatic route to enhance NICW’s contribution over time, aligned with budgetary constraints and policy ambition. This section outlines three distinct but interconnected options for institutional development—each progressively strengthening NICW’s mandate, capability, and value.

Option 1: Enhanced Advisory Role with Multi-Year Funding

This option consolidates NICW’s existing advisory role by formalising its remit over a multi-year horizon and significantly expanding its operational capacity. While remaining a non-statutory body, NICW would be placed on a more stable footing, with improved ability to undertake proactive research, commission evidence, and engage stakeholders.

Requirements

• Agreement from the Welsh Government on a fixed-term remit (e.g., 5 years), embedded in the Programme for Government.
• A dedicated, ring-fenced annual funding line within the Welsh Government budget.
• Expansion of the Programme Office, including roles for policy analysts, research officers, stakeholder engagement leads, and commissioning specialists.
• Capacity to undertake a pilot national Infrastructure Assessment by 2028.

Benefits

• Greater institutional stability and long-term planning capacity.
• Stronger evidence base to support Welsh Government and Senedd decision-making.
• Improved stakeholder engagement and sectoral collaboration.
• Early testing of new tools and methodologies in preparation for a statutory role.

This option is low-risk, immediately actionable, and would provide tangible value while laying the groundwork for future statutory evolution.

Option 2: Statutory Commission

Under this model, NICW would be established as an independent statutory body, akin to Infrastructure Victoria or Infrastructure Western Australia. It would be legally empowered to produce long-term infrastructure strategies, provide formal advice to Ministers and the Senedd, and operate with clear governance and reporting structures.

Requirements

• Primary legislation passed by the Senedd to enshrine NICW’s independence, remit, and responsibilities.
• Governance framework including a Board of Commissioners, Chief Executive, and defined reporting duties to Parliament.
• Statutory remit to deliver a 30-year infrastructure strategy, updated every five years.
• Annual reporting on strategy delivery, recommendations, and progress.

Benefits

• Legal permanence and institutional resilience beyond electoral cycles.
• Enhanced credibility with stakeholders, delivery partners, and the public.
• Transparent and accountable governance model.
• Greater ability to challenge, coordinate and align infrastructure 
• across departments.

This option represents a pivotal evolution in NICW’s role, placing it on par with global peers and signalling long-term policy ambition.

Option 3: Infrastructure Strategy and Delivery Oversight Authority

This model envisions NICW as a fully empowered statutory authority with end-to-end oversight across infrastructure strategy and delivery. It would lead the development of national infrastructure assessments and plans, oversee implementation progress, and provide a single point of strategic accountability.

Requirements

• Legislative reform to expand NICW’s statutory powers beyond strategy to include delivery monitoring and public reporting.
• Integration or structured coordination with infrastructure-delivery departments and public bodies.
• Creation of internal functions for project assessment, performance tracking, data analysis, and benchmarking.
• Significant uplift in annual budget and staffing, broadly aligned with comparable bodies such as New Zealand’s Te Waihanga or the UK’s NISTA.

Benefits

• Holistic oversight from vision to execution, improving alignment and reducing duplication.
• A single point of truth for infrastructure performance, enhancing public trust.
• Ability to identify delivery bottlenecks early, support inter-agency coordination, and recommend corrective action.
• International benchmarking to help position Wales as a leader in future-fit infrastructure policy.
  

This option delivers transformative value, providing a strategic anchor across the lifecycle of Welsh infrastructure investment.

Implementation roadmap

The evolution of NICW need not happen overnight. A staged approach allows for risk-managed growth, political consensus-building, and the development of internal capabilities before statutory transformation. The following phased roadmap outlines a realistic path from immediate enhancements to full strategic authority.

Phase 1: 2025–2028 – Strengthen and Stabilise

• Implement Option 1: Expand advisory remit and operational capacity.
• Increase staffing from 3.1 FTE to approximately 10 FTE, including dedicated roles for research, engagement, and delivery support.
• Allocate up to £1.5 million annually to support expanded operations.
• Pilot the first Wales Infrastructure Assessment, testing NICW’s capability to develop a long-term national pipeline and scenario model.
  

Phase 2: 2028–2031 – Formalise and Legislate

• Draft and pass legislation to create a Statutory NICW, supported by cross-party consensus and consultation.
• Establish a governance framework, including a Board, CEO, and statutory reporting lines to the Senedd.
• Enshrine NICW’s remit to publish a 30-year infrastructure strategy every five years.
• Begin formal reporting on infrastructure progress and outcomes under the Wales Infrastructure Investment Strategy (WIIS).
  

Phase 3: 2031 and Beyond – Expand to Strategic Oversight Authority

• Enact secondary legislation or amendments to empower NICW with oversight of infrastructure delivery.
• Integrate WIIS delivery monitoring, cost-performance dashboards, and benchmarking functions.
• Scale up staffing, systems and data infrastructure as required, with an operating budget of up to £3 million annually.
• Become the national hub for infrastructure foresight, public accountability, and performance tracking.

Conclusion and Recommendation 

Wales is at a critical juncture in its infrastructure journey. The challenges it faces—ranging from climate adaptation and ageing assets to economic transformation and social equity—demand a more strategic, coordinated, and future-facing approach to infrastructure governance. The National Infrastructure Commission for Wales (NICW), with its track record of impact, independence, and thought leadership, is well positioned to meet this moment. But to do so effectively, its remit, resourcing, and statutory basis must evolve.

This paper presents a structured, phased pathway for institutional development, beginning with foundational capacity-building and culminating in a statutory body with strategic oversight responsibilities. Each phase builds incrementally on the last, ensuring political feasibility, organisational maturity, and continuous public value.

The three options—enhanced advisory role, statutory commission, and strategic oversight authority—are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they represent milestones on a journey from basic advisory support to a globally recognised, future-ready institution that underpins infrastructure delivery across Wales.

Key Conclusions

• The status quo will be insufficient for future challenges. NICW has delivered impressive results with minimal resources, but will struggle to deliver on expectations while meeting the scale and urgency of future infrastructure challenges.
  
• The case for evolution is compelling. Comparative international models show that appropriately resourced and empowered infrastructure commissions can deliver measurable improvements in efficiency, delivery confidence, and long-term strategic planning.
  
• Phased implementation is both practical and cost-effective. A step-by-step approach allows for progressive capacity building, political alignment, and risk-managed institutional growth.
  
• The return on investment is high. Even a modest improvement in infrastructure performance would generate savings far exceeding the costs of expanding NICW, yielding better outcomes for the public, the economy, and the environment.

Infrastructure is not just about what we build; it is about the choices we make as a nation to shape our future. A strengthened NICW would give Wales the independent, strategic capacity it needs to plan wisely, invest effectively, and deliver with confidence.

Appendix: Comparative Models

The Infrastructure Commission for Scotland (ICS) carried out an in-depth assessment of different international models. This assessment concluded that there is no ‘standard’ model of infrastructure bodies internationally, and no agreed ‘best’ practice in delivering support for governments on infrastructure.

Australia – Western Australia

Infrastructure WA was established under the Infrastructure Western Australia Act 2019, a very readable piece of legislation. Its core mandate is to provide independent and expert advice to the WA Government on strategically significant infrastructure needs with a 5–10-year forward horizon. It develops and reviews the State Infrastructure Strategy, identifies priorities, and assesses proposals to guide long‑term infrastructure investment and support economic growth across sectors including transport, energy, water, social infrastructure and regional development.^,

Annual budget and headcount

Budget = £2.8m
Headcount = 20

Governance

• Board: Infrastructure WA is governed by a statutory Board appointed under the Act. It comprises an independent Chairperson, a Deputy Chair, and eight additional members—including a mix of senior public servants and private-sector experts. The Act requires the number of government‑employee board members to not exceed the number of non‑government members
• The Board and the organization operate under the legislative framework of the Infrastructure Western Australia Act 2019 and report annually to Parliament through audited Annual Reports 
• Infrastructure WA operates as an independent statutory authority, not a direct department within the WA public service (though it is government-funded). Its governance model—through a Board majority of independent/non-government members—and legislative foundations are structured to ensure it operates with autonomy from political direction in day‑to‑day advice and priority setting. However, it advises the government in its infrastructure investment decisions and remains accountable to the Premier and Parliament. So while not a policy department, it is part of the broader WA public sector with its own statutory independence.

Activity examples

• ‘Major Infrastructure Proposal Assessment’ for >100 housing units
• Live dashboard of infrastructure strategy progress for Western Australia

Australia – Victoria

Infrastructure Victoria is an independent statutory authority, established under the Infrastructure Victoria Act 2015. Its core functions are:

• Conducting original research on infrastructure-related issues.
• Developing and regularly updating a 30-year infrastructure strategy (typically reviewed every 3–5 years).

Providing evidence-based, independent advice to the Victorian Government on specific infrastructure matters including priorities, planning, and strategic direction. Importantly, it does not fund or deliver projects directly.

Annual budget and headcount

Budget = £4.5m
Headcount = 39

Governance

Statutory Board: Infrastructure Victoria is overseen by a Board, including a Chair, members appointed under the Act, and a Chief Executive Officer who leads day-to-day operations.

The Board and executive publish audited Annual Reports, with declarations under the Financial Management Act 1994.

The Board is responsible for financial oversight, strategy, and ensuring integrity of advice and reporting frameworks.

Infrastructure Victoria is legally independent from day-to-day ministerial or departmental control. As a statutory authority, it provides non-partisan, evidence-based advice to government. It operates autonomously, though:

• It is funded by the state via Parliament.
• It answers to Parliament via its Chair and Annual Reports
• It is not a part of a department (unlike project-delivery agencies), and does not implement projects, allowing separation between planning advice and execution.

New Zealand

Te Waihanga is the Government’s independent advisor on infrastructure, focused on improving the infrastructure system to help lift the country’s performance and improve the wellbeing of all New Zealanders. It was established in 2019 as an independent Crown entity.

Annual budget and headcount

Budget = £6.15m
FTE = 43

Governance

• Board: seven members appointed by the Minister.

Scotland

The Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) is an independent public body that provides advice to the Scottish Government, and is Scotland’s infrastructure centre of expertise. SFT’s activity is overseen by the sponsor Minister and supported by the Infrastructure division of the Scottish Government. 

It delivers a real-time pipeline of infrastructure activity that helps provide more certainty for industry, and has implemented an Investment Hierarchy to help maximise the lifetime and use of existing assets.

Annual budget and headcount

Budget = £8.4m
FTE = 67

Governance

• A Board comprising a Chair and seven non-executive directors
• Publication of outcomes