The 2025 Amendment to the Fast-track Approvals Act introduced something subtle but powerful: the Government Policy Statement (GPS) mechanism. Most applicants have not yet noticed how much this changes the substantive decision math.
What is a Government Policy Statement?
A GPS is a published policy direction issued by the Minister for Infrastructure that:
- Sets out the government's strategic priorities for projects under the Fast-track regime
- Must be considered by both the Minister at referral and the expert panel at substantive
- Can identify specific sectors or project types as priority
- Can set out weighting expectations on the benefit limbs
The GPS is not new legislation. It does not change the statutory test. But it materially shifts how the test is applied by giving panels and the Minister an authoritative reference point.
Why this matters
Before the Amendment, panels weighted the nine benefit limbs roughly equally. A housing project leaned on housing supply. A wind farm leaned on climate mitigation. The weighting was case-by-case.
With a GPS in place, the Minister can effectively say: "Climate-mitigation benefits should carry additional weight" or "Critical-minerals projects should be assessed as strategically significant." Panels still apply the statutory test, but the GPS becomes part of the relevant policy context.
This is most visible in the renewable energy sector. Every renewable approval so far — Tekapo, Southland Wind, Waitaha, Kaimai — has cleared. The GPS framework reinforces this trajectory by signalling that climate-mitigation benefits are a priority.
Practical implications
Three things change for applicants:
Strategic positioning becomes a workstream. Where your project intersects current GPS priorities matters. If a published GPS names your sector or benefit type as priority, your referral application should cite it explicitly.
The GPS landscape moves. A new GPS can be issued at any time, and could in theory reshape weighting for projects already in flight. We track this for clients — the political layer of the regime is now a live consideration.
Counter-cyclical projects need to work harder. If your project does not align with current GPS priorities, the burden of demonstrating significant benefit is higher. This does not mean decline — but it does mean stronger evidence packs.
How we use this
In every feasibility assessment we produce, the GPS section is now standard. We map the project against current published GPS, note alignment or non-alignment, and recommend how to position the referral application in light of it.
Most of our competitors are still treating Fast-track as a static regime. It is increasingly a dynamic one — and that is where strategic advice earns its fee.