The tyre man is here to judge our food, thanks to a $6m deal with Tourism New Zealand. Nick Iles argues why this is terrible move.

1. Six million dollars is a lot of money that could be spent on literally anything else: the money is coming from the Ministry of Tourism and Hospitality, so let’s think about putting hospitality education back on the agenda to create meaningful routes into work, or supporting fledgling artisans creating the kai that is being judged. Maybe find a way to fix our broken food networks?
2. Cuisine magazine hats exist. We literally have this system already. They are by no means a perfect system, but imagine sharing just a fraction of that $6m and working with Cuisine to bring the hats into a more public space.
3. The differences between the two conflicting systems will undermine and devalue both. What will customers think of a restaurant with two hats but one star, one star but no hats?
4. Australia turned it down. Just think about that for a moment. If a country of that size with such an impressive dining scene feels they will not benefit from the guide, then it is an act of utter arrogance to think it will do anything for us. 
5. Michelin does not meaningfully represent the way in which Aotearoa eats. We are informal and produce-led, while the guide values process and dining rooms. Although the guide – of which the Aotearoa New Zealand edition will be published mid-2026 – has begun to recognise more informal ways of eating, we should be proud to move away from that. The truth is we probably don’t have that many Michelin star restaurants, and that is not a problem.
6. This will ultimately be a massive, and free, marketing exercise for a handful of restaurants. As of this year the UK has a total of 201 Michelin star restaurants and Hong Kong has 95. We can comfortably assume we will be awarded a fraction of that number, so how will the maths stack up?  
7. The guide’s expansion into new countries has not been a success. Andy Hayler, once the only person to have ever eaten in every single 3-star restaurant in the world, suggested “Hong Kong was a particularly bad example” of the guide’s broadened horizons. Of a restaurant awarded 3 stars he said, “it is, to be frank, laughable” and that “if an aspiring one or two star chef from Italy came here, he or she would weep”. 
8. This is another act of colonialism. Judges have been flown in from Europe to rank and rate, without any meaningful understanding of our food history.
9. Cookery will become homogenised as all the chefs who actually care start cooking in a broadly Michelin-shaped way that defeats originality. 
10. This will give rise to the Michelin Star Chef. A breed of throwback early 2000s man-chef that gets elevated beyond all others and dominates the discourse. Their egos grow and they become monsters that run toxic kitchens. We have grown beyond the need for them and hospo is a much safer place as a result. 
11. While a star or two may drive tourist traffic for certain restaurants, it will create poor cousins of others and will undoubtedly impact their ability to draw international customers. 
12. The government forking over $6m creates a very clear conflict of interest. How can the guide remain impartial when it needs to be seen to be awarding? Will the restaurants given stars actually be comparable to international peers? The guide exists only to perpetuate itself. It is designed to make money. 
13. The star system places unfair expectations on restaurants. They are awards that are not asked for and often become targets for disgruntled customers. Will tourists be expecting a certain kind of experience that they will not receive?
14. This has the potential to dominate and devalue the discourse. Utter weapons and people that write reviews on Trip Advisor will only understand food in relation to stars, meaning many great restaurants will drop off the public radar. 
15. Who is this actually for?