Andrew Dickens: Is the Michelin guide worth taxpayer money?

Author: Andrew Dickens ,
Publish Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026, 6:00am

Follow the podcast on

ONA, which stands for Origine Non Animale or Non-Animal Origin, has earned a Michelin star in the newest edition of the long-running culinary guide. (Photo via CNN)

The first Michelin rankings of New Zealand restaurants are out later this month

Yesterday, Jesse Mulligan, the Herald’s restaurant reviewer, pointed out it’s going to be a very incomplete list of our best restaurants and worth little to most, including the high wealth tourists it’s supposed to attract

There’s a couple of reasons.

Firstly geographic. The reviewers have only visited Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown. So restaurants outside that area, many in our wine growing districts, won’t even be visited

His examples are Craggy Range in Hawke’s Bay and Arbour in Marlborough which he reviewed as being most probably New Zealand’s best restaurant

He also argues that that local word-of-mouth and trusted, down-to-earth recommendations hold more practical value for diners than anonymous international inspectors.

He reckons 35 restaurants might be reviewed, and we’d be lucky to see any get a star.

Now normally I wouldn’t care

Except Tourism New Zealand paid NZ $6.3 million to bring the Michelin Guide to the country in a three-year partnership agreement.

That’s an awful lot of taxpayer's money to get a very incomplete and small guide of New Zealand restaurants that miss our best and much of our country.

You know what that sounds like to me?

That sounds like wasteful government spending.