Restaurateur Steve Logan is welcoming an uptick in bookings for his Wellington institution, Logan Brown. Before being awarded one of the country’s first Michelin stars, he had the tax collector knocking at the door.
“We’re coming from a space where we’ve been in very tough economic conditions, and under a lot of pressure, you know, behind on debt.”
The restaurant was lagging on its tax, bills, rent and more, he says. Now they can buy some new crockery and glass, invest in their data operations, and maybe even start chipping away at their debts. The award of the sought-after Michelin stars to 15 Kiwi restaurants is good news for those businesses – but will it deliver for New Zealand?
Based on Tourism NZ briefings, minister Louise Upston announced Michelin’s arrival was estimated to bring in up to 36,000 more international visitors a year. It was forecast to earn the country an extra $185 million.
But Newsroom has obtained the secret ‘Project M’ business case and briefings under the Official Information Act; it shows Tourism NZ emphasised the ‘upside’ scenarios in pitching to the minister and media, but buried the central and downside forecasts in the fine print.
The briefings also imply the famous international restaurant guide essentially guaranteed the award of at least one star to a restaurant, if the New Zealand Government paid its (previously undisclosed) $1,901,250 fee.
That was described in a January 2025 briefing to Upston as one of three significant public relations opportunities in joining the Michelin programme: “New Zealand enters the programme and the inaugural star is awarded to a local restaurant.”
A subsequent briefing, in August 2025, said “the first Michelin stars” would be awarded by the end of June 2026.
The pitches to Upston were seeking a decision on International Visitor Levy funding “as soon as possible”; in the end, under deadline pressure, she and Tourism NZ agreed to put $8m toward Michelin’s fee and leveraging the announcements for international headlines.
Newsroom asked Dr Ganesh Ahirao, the former chief economist at consultancy Berl and chair of the Productivity Commission, to critique Tourism NZ’s business case.
“They absolutely should be clear in their statements about the range of potential outcomes,” he says. “As a principle, all advice should clearly state critical assumptions (if any) and the range of outcomes based on such assumptions.
“And, then yes, state a preferred result based on your assessment of most ‘viable/defensible’ assumption.”
Ahirao says it’s standard for Treasury’s ‘central projection’ to list critical risks/assumptions and then have a low and a high scenario to show and test the potential range.
Tourism NZ contradicts itself, he says. Writing to media, it bases the 36,000 additional visitors on converting a 1-2 percent increase in people considering a trip to New Zealand. That’s in the key markets of Australia, China, India and USA.
But working from the fine print in the tables, he argues the calculations rely on a “consideration lift” of between 2 percent (Australia) and 3.7 percent (India). That requires double the conversion rate.
If the Michelin Guide delivered only the 1-2 percent increased conversion rate that Tourism NZ describes, then that would work out at just 18,000 additional visitors, and only $92m extra revenue. That’s the central scenario, implicitly regarded as most likely.
Worse is the downside scenario: that would deliver just 9000 additional visitors a year, bringing in just $46m.
“The key question for me is to gauge which of the scenarios are appropriate,” Ahirao says. “I do find it curious that they are different for different countries, suggesting that Tourism NZ believes the impact of Michelin stars are different across different countries – but, again, on what basis is the belief grounded?”
The triumph of hope
René de Monchy is the chief executive of Tourism NZ. He was onstage with the owners and chefs of the 15 starred restaurants to celebrate the Michelin announcement at a glitzy ceremony at the International Convention Centre in Auckland last month.
In an interview with Newsroom, he characterises the promise of a first Michelin star as an “assumption/hope”.
To what extent did he believe he was handing over his money and would get at least one star? “They did their initial assessment, which said that they were already positive about the potential of the market. You know, they have a 100-plus year brand identity in the Michelin Guide to protect.”
“But it’s never a guarantee. So yes, we went in with an optimistic view that it would be possible.”
He points out that when the Michelin Guide first went to Saudi Arabia this year, the judges didn’t award stars to any restaurants. By contrast, 15 New Zealand establishments got stars, among 110 restaurants that are included in the country’s first guide.
How realistic was Tourism NZ being, when it pitched 36,000 additional visitors and $185m extra tourist revenue to the minister. To put that in perspective, in one of the same briefings it disclosed to Upston that it had missed its targets for off-peak guest nights, Qualmark-accredited businesses, awareness of its Tiaki brand, and also noted that the recovery in the youth tourist market was lagging.
So it’s struggled to deliver on some of its locked and loaded measures, never mind its “upside” forecasts.
Does de Monchy feel the minister was made adequately aware of the downside scenario? “We had a target. We had a range of opportunities within it. I’m comfortable with the approach that we took, that we had a range that we were offered up, and we assessed those.”
For the launch and the first year of operation, Tourism NZ has paid to bring influencers to New Zealand to raise awareness of New Zealand fine dining. It’s targeted $11.5m to $15m “earned advertising value” – that’s marketing jargon for the value of the media headlines.
“We’ll be tracking our earned advertising value, sentiment, appeal of New Zealand, all of those things,” de Monchy says. “We have already added into the international visitor survey a number of questions about Michelin. So we will start to track how many people are influenced by Michelin in their choice to come to New Zealand.”
Return on national investment
It seems fair to say the New Zealand economy will see a return on the Government’s investment.
A Kantar survey, commissioned by Tourism NZ, suggested New Zealand’s inclusion in the Michelin Guide would influence among half of all Indian respondents considering a trip to this country, and would be a factor in the holiday-planning of smaller proportions of Australian, American and Chinese travellers.
The question is simply, how big is that return – and was the minister made aware a starry-eyed Tourism NZ was emphasising the upside in its business case?
For Steve Logan, at Logan Brown, the things that counts for the most is the quality Kiwi produce, and what the best New Zealand restaurants do with it.
“We’re a New Zealand restaurant. Our purpose is to share a taste of our place. It’s everything that makes us proud about New Zealand cuisine and hospitality,” he say.
“So we’re pushing New Zealand, we’re promoting New Zealand, we’re proud of New Zealand. We’re really proud of the ingredients we get to use, and the hospitality we have in New Zealand.
“It’s genuine and and it’s open and it’s friendly and it’s no pretensions and no class things.”
“We’ve got our backside to Antarctica, and we’re looking up at the rest of the world, and we’re open to including ingredients from all around the world, cooking techniques from all aound the world, bringing them all together. We’ve got an open mind, which is an advantage for us.”
The Amisfield problem
There is one award that has tainted the broth. There have been international headlines about Michelin awarding one of its first stars to the Amisfield restaurant near Queenstown, whose head chef Vaughan Mabee had just been ousted after a series of complaints of bullying and abusive behaviour towards women staff.
Amisfield has been removed from the Good Food Guide, the Three Knives organisers are considering rescinding Mabee’s award, his TV show has been dropped by both TVNZ and Australia’s SBS – yet Michelin had no such scruples.
Local opinions about Amisfield’s star have been divided. NewstalkZB broadcaster Heather du Plessis-Allen agreed the decision was controversial, but said it was the right one. “What I want to know is this: is Amisfield a good place to eat? Now that the legendary – and problematic – chef has gone, is it still good Apparently, the answer is yes.”
But Kelly Meharg, co-founder of women’s magazine Capsule, described the Amisfield award as the elephant in the room at the awards. “Even taking into account the hard-working team who have done absolutely nothing wrong in this sad situation, there is no way Amisfield should have been awarded a star,” she wrote.
Despite concerns from when Mabee first joined the kitchen in 2016, the restaurant’s owner John Darby hired him back after a former general manager sacked him. Mabee was later convicted of drink-driving after crashing his Toyota Hilux into a ditch beside Arrowtown-Lake Hayes Rd about 1am, then fleeing the bloodied wreck to the nearby home of his boss John Darby. Notwithstanding complaints and the conviction, his behaviour was allowed to continue until late last year.
Until now, René de Monchy and Tourism NZ had ducked questions about the award to Amisfield, emphasising the independence of the Michelin judges.
But that defence has become less sustainable, with the disclosure of the ministerial briefing implying Michelin had essentially guaranteed the award of at least one star to a local restaurant. Amisfield was widely touted as the frontrunner.
Is the Amisfield award an embarrassment to Tourism NZ? “Look, that is a Michelin awarded restaurant against the globally applied criteria,” de Monchy says.
He will be going out with his mother and brother for a family dinner next week, and plans to book one of the newly-anointed Michelin Guide restaurants. But it won’t be Amisfield: “I don’t have any plans to be there in the foreseeable future,” de Monchy says.
Gwendal Poullennec, international director of the Michelin Guide, has distanced the Michelin from the ministerial briefing, telling Newsroom there was no guarantee of stars.
“Tourism NZ had no involvement in the Michelin Guide recommendations, or any influence on the inspectors’ selection of restaurants,” Poullenec says. “Investment from destination partners does not influence the number and type of restaurants evaluated, the number of restaurants selected, or the number of stars awarded.”
Tourism Minister Louise Upston’s office says she stands by the investment which, along with other levers, is helping drive the strong recovery of New Zealand’s tourism economy.
This news article has been updated with responses from Gwendal Poullennec and Louise Upston.
.png?w=600)
