A common confusion in Fast-track applications: who actually decides what. There are three different bodies involved, and they apply three different tests at three different stages. Getting this clear up front avoids most of the dumb mistakes we see in client briefings.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
The administrator. Not a decision-maker.
What it does:
- Receives referral applications and substantive applications
- Checks completeness against statutory requirements
- Convenes expert panels from a pre-vetted pool
- Coordinates communications between applicant, panel, ministers and statutory parties
- Administers cost recovery (the EPA fees you pay are not the Minister's, they are EPA's)
- Publishes decisions and reasoning
The EPA does not decide whether a project gets referred. It does not decide whether a substantive application succeeds. It is a procedural and administrative body. Applicants who treat the EPA like a decision-maker waste time. Applicants who treat the EPA like a postbox underestimate how much soft influence the EPA has on what reaches the Minister and the panel.
The Minister for Infrastructure (jointly with portfolio ministers)
The gatekeeper. Decides referrals.
What the Minister does:
- Receives referral applications via the EPA
- Applies the s.22 statutory test ("significant regional or national benefits")
- Considers consistency with any Government Policy Statement, Treaty settlements, iwi participation legislation, and the views of affected local authorities
- Decides whether to refer to an expert panel, refer with amendments, or decline
For non-Schedule-2 projects, the Minister's decision is the first hard yes/no. Schedule 2 projects skip this stage entirely — their referral was the political decision made when the Act passed.
The Minister does not assess effects, design conditions, or grant consents. That is the panel's job.
The expert panel
The decision-maker. Applies the substantive test.
What the panel does:
- Receives the substantive application via the EPA
- Seeks comments from defined statutory parties (no general public submission rights)
- May issue clarification requests and additional-information requests
- May hold a hearing if needed
- Decides whether to grant or decline, with conditions
- Issues written reasons within statutory timeframes
The panel applies a different test to the Minister. The Minister at referral stage applies s.22 (benefit limbs). The panel at substantive stage applies the full purpose of the Act combined with effects analysis under the relevant consenting statutes (RMA, Conservation Act, Crown Minerals Act etc).
The panel must give greatest weight to the purpose of the Act — facilitating projects with significant regional or national benefits — and can only decline if adverse effects are so severe they cannot be addressed through conditions.
Composition: typically three or four members, chaired by a current or former judge, with a Treaty/tikanga member and subject-matter experts (planning, ecology, engineering) as needed.
Why this matters in practice
Three concrete consequences.
Different audiences for different documents. The referral application is written for the Minister — political and strategic framing wins. The substantive application is written for the panel — technical and evidence-based wins. These are not the same document with different cover pages.
Different timeframes. EPA processing, Minister decision, panel decision are sequential. Each has its own statutory clock. Plan accordingly — you cannot compress one stage by working harder on another.
Different communication channels. Pre-lodgement engagement with the EPA is normal and productive. Direct lobbying of the Minister is fraught and rarely helps. Communication with the panel is rigidly procedural — clarification requests, no informal contact.
Once you internalise these three bodies, the entire regime stops feeling opaque. They each have a job. They each have a test. They each have a calendar. Build your engagement around that.