The McDonald's golden arches logo on the left side against a sky blue background
(Image: Getty)

The BulletinFebruary 13, 2025

How a planned Wānaka McDonald’s came to be about more than just fast food

The McDonald's golden arches logo on the left side against a sky blue background
(Image: Getty)

‘An economic own-goal’ or a triumph of democracy? Stewart Sowman-Lund explains in today’s edition of The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

No McDonald’s for Wānaka

Wānaka will not be getting a planned McDonald’s after a long-brewing stoush ended in the local council declining a resource application for the new restaurant, which would have been just outside the town centre and therefore in an area covered by rural consenting processes. RNZ’s Delphine Herbert has the details, reporting that the majority of the 367 public submissions made were against the new 455-square metre restaurant, with concerns it could impact the visual aesthetic of the lakeside town and impact the environment. “We acknowledge if constructed the consented development will further alter the character of the site,” noted the commissioners in their final decision. “However, we do not consider that the consented development, or even the service station, creates a commercial node. Further we find the proposed development at odds with the character typically associated with rural living.”

However, as we’ll dig into a little below, the controversy over the McDonald’s came to represent – for some at least – burdensome regulation getting in the way of more jobs and economic growth.

The backstory

This issue has been bubbling away for some time. As Stuff’s Debbie Jamieson reported in February last year, plans for the restaurant were “revived” after first being put forward the previous November. By this point, there was already a 5,000-plus strong petition against the store, with organiser Sarah Morrison arguing the fast food giant was “responsible for extensive food waste and pollution” and would impact patronage of smaller, local businesses. At this stage in the process, the proposed store was to operate 24/7, but by the end of last year it had put forward shorter opening hours and offered to reduce its signage to assuage concerns about the impact on the town’s image. A three-day public hearing in November saw arguments for and against the restaurant made. Debbie Jamieson covered this extensively for The Press, noting that health experts largely opposed the plans (with some caveats). The restaurant had argued that moral and health-related objections to fast food should not be allowed in the hearing.

Speaking to Newstalk ZB’s Andrew Dickens last night, Queenstown Lakes District deputy mayor Quentin Smith explained that from the council’s perspective, this came down to the restaurant’s location rather than concerns over fast food. “There are maybe parts of town that might be appropriate, and if this had been within the town centre or a commercial zone I dare say there’s very little that anybody could do to stop that.” Following yesterday’s decision, reported the Otago Daily Times, McDonald’s said it remained committed to opening a restaurant in Wānaka and would “[navigate] some of the local commercial interests at play”.

Did bureaucracy get in the way?

It’s entirely acceptable to dislike having a new McDonald’s open on your doorstep, just as it’s entirely valid to argue in favour of one. However, this particularly development arguably garnered more attention than you might expect given there are already over 170 McDonald’s restaurants up and down the country.

The development has been pulled into the national consciousness for a few reasons. Last year, then-health minister Shane Reti criticised health officials after it emerged the National Public Health Service had submitted a broad proposal against the McDonald’s. “Content within the submission, including observations about planetary health, landscape values, traffic and Te Tiriti do not match my over-arching view of what the NPHS should be spending its time on,” said Reti at the time. “Whooping cough, measles and raising immunisation rates are among the most pressing issues facing health today.”

The Act Party has been consistently critical of how this process has been handled. The party’s health spokesperson Todd Stephenson called the health service “taxpayer-funded busybodies”, while, after yesterday’s decision, environment spokesperson Cameron Luxton suggested bureaucracy had simply got in the way. “A legitimate business has been blocked from investing, hiring locals, and selling products to willing buyers. This is an economic own-goal for Wānaka, and it shows how our planning regime stifles development,” the MP said.

Culture of no

This is just one isolated example involving a large multinational company, but it’s hard not to see how it ties into the prime minister’s crusade against “no” culture. The Spinoff’s Duncan Greive made a similar link when looking at the decision to bar under 18s from Laneway Festival. While that was about alcohol licensing rules, Greive said it illustrated “both the complex set of factors which go into making such a decision, but also… how difficult it can be to make something original and fun happen in New Zealand”.

Just a couple of days ago, prime minister Christopher Luxon proudly wrote on Twitter that New Zealand was “open for business”. It’s all part of his pro-growth campaign that he’s been waging since the start of the year (though some, such as The Spinoff’s Hayden Donnell, have wryly pointed out that there are plenty of examples of when the PM himself has said “no” to things). Part of that includes a long-overdue overhaul of the Resource Management Act. As RNZ’s Adam Burns reported, RMA reform minister Chris Bishop recently said that the Wānaka McDonald’s case was a “perfect example of everything wrong with the” the existing act. Opponents to the restaurant, however, have urged the government to ensure that community voices will still be heard after any legislative update.

Keep going!
A running water tap on a green background
(Image: Getty)

The BulletinFebruary 12, 2025

Why fluoridation is back in the spotlight

A running water tap on a green background
(Image: Getty)

A battle between health officials and local councils is heating up, as one government party seeks to change the rules. The Bulletin’s Stewart Sowman-Lund explains.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

NZ First wades into fluoridated waters

New Zealand First has launched a member’s bill that would return power to councils to decide whether or not to add fluoride to local drinking water. Stuff’s Karanama Ruru has the key details here, reporting that party leader Winston Peters said that public health measures should be decided with “transparency, debate, and local voices, not by overreaching Wellington-based bureaucrats”. Councils would have to hold a binding referendum before deciding whether or not to fluoridate. “The only people who would oppose this bill are those who oppose democracy” said Peters.

As a member’s bill, this isn’t government policy – it will need to be drawn out and debated and there’s no suggestion it will receive support from any other party in parliament. However, as we’ll get into below, it’s actually a rather topical issue (and it has little to do with the science, with a 2024 review of the current health settings in New Zealand reaffirming that community water fluoridation was a “safe and effective public health intervention”).

No change on the cards

As noted above, should this bill be drawn for debate in the current parliament, it won’t necessarily gain support from the other two parties in the coalition. The new health minister, Simeon Brown, told reporters yesterday that the existing legislation on fluoridation won’t change, while finance minister Nicola Willis said the science around fluoride was settled. “I want my kids teeth being in good nic, and I want that for every New Zealand child.” The Ministry of Health, too, has defended the existing health measures. A spokesperson told 1News there had been more than 60 years of research into fluoridation and experts endorsed it as a safe public health measure.

It seems unlikely, therefore, that the existing law is going to change anytime soon – though it’s worth remembering New Zealand First has argued for amending the rules on the basis of freedom of choice and not because of any health risks, even if some corners will be pushing that angle.

The councils holding out

The reason Winston Peters’ push to change the law is topical is because some councils – or, at least, some councillors – have been publicly expressing their discomfort with mandatory fluoridation. The Rotorua Daily Post reported last week that a local councillor had called for the directive to fluoridate water be halted until an independent public inquiry could be carried out. The Ministry of Health’s head dentist faced public opposition and heckles of “misinformation” during a council workshop on Monday, the Daily Post reported today, and the council said it was considering providing a fluoride-free water source alongside fulfilling the requirement to fluoridate its eastern and central water supplies.

In Whangārei, things have already reached boiling point. The Local Democracy service reported that the city faces a whopping $5 million slap over the knuckles – to be covered by ratepayers – should it not proceed with fluoridation after councillors voted late last year against it. The director-general of health has threatened to directly intervene and effectively turn on the fluoride tap herself should the council not follow the national directive. Both councils have until the end of March to decide what course of action to take.

These are relatively isolated situations and the vast majority of councils have followed health directives thus far (the full list is here, showing some councils have a longer runway to act). Nevertheless, it’s clear Winston Peters is answering a call being made by certain communities.

How we ended up here

It was in 2022 when then-director general of health Ashley Bloomfield ordered 14 local authorities that were not already fluoridating their water supply to do so. It was the first time a national approach to fluoridation had been established, taking decision-making away from individual councils. The High Court later determined that Bloomfield had not fully considered Bill of Rights implications when issuing each directive, reported Stuff at the time. That debate is set to be reignited in the Court of Appeal later this year, with the health ministry maintaining that the directives issued to local councils amounted to a “justified limitation” on the Bill of Rights. As such, the directives remain in place at this point.

And so, we have a government party trying to change the law, a forthcoming court decision and two councils considering how or if they will abide by the rules. In short, this issue is far from settled.