How New Zealand Tourism saw stars rather than the purpose behind the Michelin Guide
- Grant McLachlan
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
The Government paid $6.3 million to bring the world's most famous restaurant guide to New Zealand, then confined its inspectors to the four cities least in need of the introduction.
Fifteen New Zealand restaurants collected Michelin stars at an Auckland ceremony on 1 July, the guide's first entry into Oceania in its 125-year history. Getting it here cost Tourism New Zealand $6.3 million, part of it drawn from the levy that foreign tourists pay on arrival.
The argument since has mostly been about the price tag.
The more interesting question is what Michelin was actually built to do, and why a country that spends heavily marketing its regions chose to use it making four cities more famous instead.
Contents
The numbers behind the ribbon
The Guide handed out one two-star rating, to Essence in Queenstown, and fourteen one-star ratings, alongside 35 Bib Gourmand awards and 60 Selected listings — 110 restaurants recognised in total, all of them in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch or Queenstown.
That works out at $393,750 per star.
Tourism Minister Louise Upston rejected that framing, pointing out the $6.3 million buys three years of Michelin returning to update the guide, not a one-off ceremony.
What the tyre company was built to do
Michelin's star system is a marketing device invented in 1900 by a French tyre company to give French motorists a reason to drive further than they otherwise would.
A one-star restaurant is worth a stop on a journey you are already making.
Two stars is worth a detour.
Three stars is worth planning the whole trip around.
Every rung of that ladder assumes the diner is willing to leave the city behind.
That is the entire commercial logic of the brand: sell tyres by sending people down roads they would not otherwise drive.
New Zealand paid for the badge and then built a programme that guaranteed nobody would need new tyres to use it.
None of that meaning was stressed when the results were announced.
Ministers spoke about counts and prestige — fifteen stars, 110 restaurants recognised — rather than what a two-star or three-star rating is actually meant to tell a diner about how far to travel.
The irony compounds in the result itself: New Zealand's only two-star restaurant, Essence, is a five-minute walk from central Queenstown, not a drive down some back road, which is precisely the kind of journey two stars is supposed to justify.
The itinerary Wellington chose
Michelin's inspectors were contracted to visit only Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown for the length of the three-year deal.
Of the roughly 20,000 hospitality outlets in New Zealand, about 12,783 sit inside those four regions — meaning roughly a third of the country's restaurants were never in the running.
Louise Upston has argued that being included in the guide at all, regardless of stars, puts New Zealand on the radar of the roughly 85 per cent of travellers who weigh a country's food when deciding where to holiday, and that Tourism New Zealand expects tens of thousands of additional visitors as a result.
Nothing in that pitch depends on the visitor ever leaving the four cities Michelin was paid to inspect.
Hawke's Bay, off the menu
Restaurant critic Jesse Mulligan made the obvious point before the results were even announced: some of the country's best dining sits well outside Michelin's four-city radius, naming Craggy Range in Hawke's Bay and Arbour in Marlborough as restaurants that were simply never visited.
Hawke's Bay has spent a century being marketed as the “fruit bowl of New Zealand”, "Wine County", and is the country's second-largest wine region on top of that. Its produce turned up in the guide anyway, just not attached to a Hawke's Bay address.
Auckland's Ragtag, one of the 60 Selected restaurants, sources tortillas, wine and craft beer from Hawke's Bay producers and runs annual pop-ups back in the region, according to its chef Daniel Freeman.
The region supplied the ingredients. Auckland collected the listing.
Hawke's Bay is not alone in that.
The exclusion list reads like a tour of the country's most food-proud small towns: Kaikoura's crayfish, Bluff's oysters, Havelock's green-lipped mussels and Hokitika's whitebait are all the kind of produce Michelin's own model was invented to send diners driving toward. None of those towns sat anywhere near the four-city net New Zealand paid for.
Fifty years teaching New Zealand to eat
New Zealand's own food culture did not arrive through anonymous French inspectors.
It arrived through television, and it arrived by making good food less intimidating rather than more.
When the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation put Graham Kerr on air in the early 1960s, his flamboyant style and expensive ingredients put viewers off rather than drawing them in. The broadcaster went looking for his opposite and found Alison Holst, whose entire career was built on the idea that everyday cooks should be able to make what they saw on screen. Her son and collaborator, Simon Holst, has since observed that competitive, drama-driven formats put pressure on cooks in a way that has little to do with the food itself.
My own parents were part of that same generation of change. My father was an engineer at Watties. My mother trained as a chef and was the first to appear on New Zealand television - promoting the Wellington Gas Board - before going on to teach home economics and night classes for mothers.
Getting New Zealanders past meat-and-three-veg took decades of patient, practical television, not a single glamorous ceremony.
The booking that vanished
One friend, a regular at several of the newly starred restaurants, put it more bluntly than any economist has: he doubts he will get a table again now the secret is out.
Bookings at the winning restaurants filled up within minutes of the ceremony ending.
I commented that it is like a YouTuber posting the coordinates of his favourite favourite spot.
It has landed during a stretch when dining out has actually been getting harder to justify, not easier.
41 per cent of New Zealanders said they dined out less in 2024 than the year before, roughly double the rate of Australian diners pulling back over the same period.
A government celebration of exclusivity has arrived exactly when most households are cutting back on the thing being celebrated.
Who this actually helps
Michelin itself says 82 per cent of restaurants that make its guide report higher profits afterwards.
That may well be true. It is also an argument for who benefits: a small number of already-successful, already-central operators get busier, while the Government's own tourism agency effectively owns a stake in whether the guide's judgement looks credible next time round.
One wonders the independence and credibility of Michelin's judges if they were contracted to only visit four main centres when they could have hired a car (with Michelin tyres) and driven in search of a potential three star recipient.
Critics at The Spinoff have raised the same conflict-of-interest problem from a different angle: a guide part-funded by the government it is assessing has an obvious incentive to keep finding enough stars to justify the next payment.
None of that is a criticism of the chefs who won. It is a criticism of a spending decision that never had to exclude two-thirds of the country's regions to achieve its stated aim.
Spending $6.3 million to celebrate exclusivity, in cities already booked out, at the same moment households are cutting back on the very act of dining out, is not just poorly targeted. It is tone deaf.
Michelin built its whole business on sending people further down the road than they meant to go. New Zealand took the badge, kept the diners in the car park, and called it tourism strategy.
