The Fast-track Amendment Bill was passed under urgency on 9 December 2025, following a series of last-minute changes set out in an Amendment Paper on the same day.

The amendments to the Fast-track Approvals Act (FTAA) will take effect in two stages: the first took effect to 16 December 2025 and the second will take effect on 31 March 2026.

Below we discuss what’s out, what’s still in or has been added, and what this means going forward for approvals under fast-track regime. See also our quick guide to the Fast-track Amendment Bill here.

What’s out?

The Government has backed away from several controversial proposals that were included in the Bill as introduced, following feedback during the legislative process:

• The requirement in the Bill for panels to be set up within 15 working days has been removed. 
• Panels have retained a full discretion to invite comments from persons in addition to the mandatory participants listed in the FTAA, as the panel sees fit. The proposal in the Bill as first introduced to restrict that discretion has been dropped.  But, persons invited to comment under the panel’s general discretion do not have appeal rights to the High Court on questions of law. 
• The proposal for applicants and local authorities to “raise-concerns” about panel members has been removed. Local authorities can still nominate one panel member.
• The proposal to give the Minister for Infrastructure a power to provide directions to the EPA has been refined to ensure the Minister cannot give directions about the EPA’s statutorily independent functions or direct the EPA in relation to specific applications.

What’s still in and what’s been added?

The Bill proposed a number of changes to the approvals process that were endorsed in the final reading, as follows:

• The removal of mandatory consultation with most of the previously listed groups before lodging a referral application. Instead, a pre‑lodgement notification process that requires applicants to notify specified persons in writing and give them 20 working days to respond has been confirmed. The same notification‑and‑response process applies to consultation requirements for listed projects before substantive applications are lodged.
• A number of discrete changes to the referral decision-making process to clarify who is to prepare reports and comments on a referral application, and by when.  Notably, the time frame for local authority comments has been reduced from 20 working days to 15, and further direction has been included about what local authorities must comment on (which is essentially whether there are any competing applications or existing resource consents) and what local authorities may comment on in their discretion. 
• The Minister can issue a Government Policy Statement about the benefits of certain infrastructure or development projects. Decision-makers (including panels and the Minister when making referral decisions) are required to take them into account when considering fast-track applications. 
• The Bill’s proposal to allow substantive applications for listed projects to be sought in separate stages (as is already the case in the FTAA for referred projects) has been retained.  Progressing a listed project in stages requires a Ministerial approval to do so. The Minister will need to be satisfied that the relevant stage will meet the test for regional significance if considered as a stand-alone project.
• The completeness check process includes an ability for the EPA to request further information from an applicant rather than simply returning the application as incomplete.  
• Once a panel is set up, it must start work within 5 working days and notify the EPA of its start date. The panel can also direct the EPA to obtain advice or reports from specified agencies, with a standard 10-day timeframe for responses (longer for mining reports). Further comments are only allowed if requested by the panel.
• The proposed default maximum time frame for a panel to make its decisions has been extended from 60 (in the Bill as introduced) to 90 working days.  This period can be further extended if the applicant agrees.  But, the ability for the panel convener to set bespoke maximum time limits for projects has been removed.   
• Changes have been made to the project descriptions of a number of projects in Schedule 2, including the Stella Passage project.  The ability for further changes to be made to Schedule 2 via an Order in Council process has been retained which is likely to be useful for any listed applications that discover their project descriptions are incomplete or otherwise require amendment.

What does this mean going forward?

The Government has walked back from the most controversial changes in the Amendment Bill as first introduced.  Overall, we anticipate that the Fast-track process will continue largely as it has to date, but with some different timeframes and steps.  The tightening of timeframes for local authorities adds additional pressure on an already tight process.

Issue to watch

One issue we will watch with interest is whether the changes make it more difficult for panels to be appointed.  The panel convener observed in her oral submission to the select-committee that the changes in the bill were already impacting the willingness of people to sit on panels. While the requirement in the Bill for panels to be set up within 15 working days has been removed, meaning prospective panel members will have slightly more control if they do not have capacity in just three weeks to fully immerse themselves in the decision making process, we are aware that the resourcing implications for panel members is not insignificant. This is particularly the case for practising lawyers or consultants, who have a stable of clients and existing workstreams to continue to progress.

Difficulties in appointing panels is not new.  Appointing panels was a particular difficulty with the now repealed COVID Fast-track regime.  There were considerable delays appointing panels for some projects due to the structure of the system.  

It is our observation that, so far, the appointment of panels has not faced the same difficulty under the FTAA. The quality of the expert panels has been extremely high, with some of the country’s most senior judges chairing panels for the most controversial projects, supported by experienced experts. 

A source of risk for attracting panel members could be the removal of the panel convener’s discretion to set bespoke timeframes for projects, coupled with the default maximum 90 working-day time limit.  To put 90 working days in context, the maximum processing time frame for regular resource consents in the new Planning Bill range from 45 to 130 working days.  The panel for the Trans-Tasman Resources fast track project was given 130 working days and it is difficult to see how such a large and complicated project could be considered in less time.

Unless applicants are willing to agree to longer timeframes at the outset, suitable persons may simply decline to sit on panels.  If that occurs, there could be delays setting up panels and possibly lower quality decisions if the same calibre of panels cannot be sustained.

Getting the conditions ‘right’ is also crucial to the successful delivery of a project - rushing that work could result in the need for more applications to vary conditions of consent in the future. This is something for applicants to carefully consider. 

Get in touch

While we have touched on the more notable changes to the FTAA, there are other changes that could be important for some projects. We have valuable insights and expertise in navigating the system from our work on fast track projects in 2025 to share, so if you have any questions about the FTAA, please get in touch.

Special thanks to Payge Swanson for her assistance in preparing this article.