过去两三年，新西兰餐饮业的日子并不好过。

从奥克兰Ponsonby的老牌餐厅SPQR，到市中心的Vivace、The Grove，再到经营了30多年的中餐厅Dragonboat（龙舫），以及Sun World Seafood（新世界海鲜酒家）、等华人熟悉的餐厅，相继关门、清盘或退出市场。

这些名字背后，是新西兰餐饮业一个越来越明显的现实：客人没有以前那么愿意花钱了，人工、租金、食材、电费和保险等成本却很难降下来。对于现金流本来就不宽裕的小餐馆而言，收入稍微下降一点，利润就可能迅速被吃掉。

Centrix数据显示，2025年新西兰酒店、餐饮及相关行业共有376宗企业清盘，同比增加约50%。到2026年，这一趋势仍然没有完全扭转。此前公布的滚动12个月数据显示，酒店餐饮业清盘数量已经达到380宗左右。

这已经不是几家经营不善的餐厅的问题。

真正值得讨论的是，为什么一个过去被认为相对容易进入、能够吸纳大量就业的行业，如今越来越多老板选择关门？

疫情当然是原因之一。全球通胀、利率上升、房贷压力以及消费者支出下降，同样不是新西兰政府能够单独解决的问题。但问题在于，国家党、行动党、优先党组成的联合政府自2023年11月上台以后，已经不能永远把所有困难都归咎于上一届政府、疫情或者国际环境。

执政意味着责任也随之转移。

政府可以说，经济正在逐步复苏；但对于一家餐厅老板来说，所谓“经济复苏”并不一定意味着生意已经恢复。

餐厅最敏感的不是GDP增长率，而是每天晚上有多少张桌子坐了人，有多少顾客愿意点第二杯酒，有多少家庭还愿意一家人出去吃饭。

这也是为什么餐饮业的情况值得成为观察新西兰经济的一面镜子。

过去几年，生活成本上涨已经改变了消费者的行为。以前一家人周末出去吃饭可能是普通消费，现在很多家庭会先看价格，再决定是否出门。午餐从餐厅改成外卖，咖啡从每天一杯变成偶尔购买，高档餐厅则成为很多人首先削减的开支。

对于餐厅来说，问题却恰恰相反。

工资不能随意降低，租金合同不会因为客流下降而自动减少，食品价格也并没有回到疫情前的水平。老板如果提高菜单价格，又可能进一步吓跑消费者。

这形成了一个很难破解的循环：

顾客减少消费，餐厅提高价格；价格越高，消费者越谨慎；客流下降以后，餐厅只能进一步削减人员和营业时间。

最终，一些企业只能退出市场。

国家党领导的联合政府当然可以指出，部分问题早在2023年之前就已经形成。这一点没有错。

但政治责任不能只在情况好的时候属于政府，情况坏的时候就属于上一届政府。

如果经济增长、就业改善和通胀下降可以成为政府政策的成绩，那么企业倒闭增加、消费疲弱以及小企业现金流紧张，也必须成为政府需要面对的政治问题。

尤其值得注意的是，国家党领导的联合政府直到2025年10月才正式启动针对酒店餐饮业的监管审查。政府自己承认，这个行业长期受到过时、重复以及复杂监管规定的困扰。

这项审查本身值得肯定。

但问题是，为什么要等到大量餐厅已经退出市场之后，才开始系统地检查这些规则？

对于一家大型企业而言，多承担一些行政成本也许还能消化；对于一家只有十几名员工的小餐馆来说，一项许可、一项合规要求、一次检查或者一笔额外成本，都可能直接影响现金流。

政府经常强调“减少监管”“降低企业负担”，但企业真正需要看到的是经营成本下降，而不是政策文件里的漂亮表述。

税务政策也是同样的问题。

新西兰税务局近年来明显加强了欠税追缴和清盘行动。2024/25年度，IRD向法院申请清盘的案件达到650宗，同比增加49%。与此同时，截至2025年6月底，新西兰税务及相关债务达到约93亿纽元。

从政府角度来说，追缴税款当然合理。一个企业长期不交税，也不能简单要求其他守法企业替它承担成本。

但是，在经济低迷时期，政府如何处理那些“有生意、有资产、有客户，但暂时现金流断裂”的小企业，同样体现政策的水平。

如果一家餐厅只是因为短期现金流困难，却还有生存和恢复的可能，那么政府究竟应该选择立即追缴、推动清盘，还是给予更长的重组和偿付时间？

这不是简单的“该不该收税”的问题，而是政府如何在财政纪律与企业生存之间取得平衡的问题。

这也是国家党联合政府比较难回避的地方。

政府不能一方面强调企业家精神、小企业和私营部门的重要性，另一方面又让大量小企业在需求不足、成本高企和现金流紧张的情况下自行承担风险。

当然，公平地说，新西兰餐饮业的问题并不能全部归咎于国家党。

2023年之前，行业已经受到疫情、封城、供应链混乱、工资上涨和高通胀的冲击。新西兰央行为了控制通胀大幅提高利率，也进一步压缩了家庭和企业的消费能力。

这些因素并不是国家党制造的。

但国家党领导的联合政府需要回答的是另外一个问题：在自己执政的这几年里，究竟有没有足够快地帮助经济重新建立需求？

这也是很多企业主真正关心的地方。

因为对于餐厅而言，“减税”并不一定马上转化成顾客；“削减政府开支”也不会自动让周五晚上多出十张餐桌。

餐饮业需要的是消费者重新有信心消费，需要就业稳定，需要房贷压力下降，需要游客回来，也需要企业能够更容易、更便宜地雇人、经营和投资。

从这个角度看，政府的经济政策最终还是要回到一个非常简单的问题：

普通新西兰人有没有更多的钱和信心走进一家餐厅？

2026年，情况已经开始出现一些改善迹象。餐饮行业的销售额正在恢复，消费者信心也较前期有所改善，利率下降同样有助于缓解家庭压力。

但这并不意味着前几年留下的伤痕已经消失。

一家经营了20年、30年的餐厅关门，不只是老板失去一份工作，也意味着厨师、服务员、供应商、房东以及周边商业失去收入。

更重要的是，这些老餐厅往往承载着一个城市的商业记忆。

SPQR的关闭、The Grove的告别、Vivace的清盘，以及Dragonboat等老牌中餐厅退出市场，说明的并不仅仅是“某个老板经营失败”。

它们更像是一张张经济温度计。

温度低的时候，最先感受到寒意的往往不是大型上市公司，而是街角的咖啡馆、小餐厅、理发店、零售店和家庭企业。

这也是2026年大选前，国家党联合政府必须认真面对的问题。

政府当然可以继续说，很多问题是上一届政府留下的；也可以强调疫情、国际经济和央行利率政策。

这些解释都有一定道理。

但是，选民最终看的不是解释，而是结果。

如果国家党希望继续获得企业主、小商户和中产阶级的支持，就不能只告诉他们“经济正在好转”。它需要让他们真正感觉到：做生意比两年前容易了，而不是仅仅比最困难的时候稍微好了一点。

对于餐饮业而言，最现实的政治评价其实非常简单。

当一家餐厅倒闭的时候，不应该轻易说这是政府造成的；但当成百上千家企业连续倒闭时，政府也不能假装这只是市场自己的事情。

市场决定谁最终留下，但政府决定企业在什么样的环境里竞争。

这才是国家党领导的联合政府在2026年大选前真正需要回答的问题。

一家餐厅的关门，不是一张选票。

但当越来越多的小企业老板开始认为经营环境越来越困难时，这种不满最终一定会进入投票站。

而那才是政府真正需要担心的地方。

From SPQR to Dragonboat: Restaurants Are Closing One by One — What Does This Say About New Zealand’s Consumer Economy and Business Environment?

The past two or three years have been difficult for New Zealand’s hospitality industry.

From the long-established SPQR in Ponsonby to city-centre institutions such as Vivace and The Grove, and from the more than 30-year-old Chinese restaurant Dragonboat to familiar names in Auckland’s Chinese community such as Sun World Seafood, a growing number of restaurants have closed, entered liquidation or withdrawn from the market.

Behind these closures lies an increasingly familiar story across New Zealand hospitality: customers are becoming more reluctant to spend, while labour, rents, food, electricity and insurance costs remain stubbornly high. For small restaurants operating on thin margins, even a modest decline in revenue can quickly wipe out profitability.

Centrix data show that 376 hospitality businesses entered liquidation in 2025, an increase of around 50 per cent from the previous year. The pressure has not fully eased in 2026. Earlier rolling 12-month figures put hospitality liquidations at around 380.

This is no longer simply a matter of a handful of poorly run restaurants.

The more important question is why an industry once regarded as relatively accessible to entrepreneurs, and capable of supporting large numbers of jobs, is seeing so many owners decide that it is no longer worth continuing.

The pandemic is certainly part of the explanation. Global inflation, higher interest rates, mortgage pressures and weaker consumer spending are also factors that no New Zealand government can resolve on its own.

But there is a political point that cannot be avoided. Since the National-led coalition government came to office in November 2023, it cannot indefinitely attribute every difficulty to the previous government, the pandemic or international conditions.

With government comes responsibility.

The Government can point to an economy that is gradually recovering. For a restaurant owner, however, an economic recovery does not necessarily mean that business has recovered.

A restaurant is less concerned with the headline GDP growth rate than with how many tables are occupied on a Friday night, whether customers order a second drink, and whether families still feel comfortable going out for dinner.

That is why hospitality provides such a useful lens through which to view the wider New Zealand economy.

The cost-of-living crisis has changed consumer behaviour. A family meal out that was once an ordinary weekend expense has become something many households now consider carefully. Lunches are replaced by takeaway or meals at home; a daily coffee becomes an occasional purchase; and expensive restaurants are often among the first discretionary expenses to be cut.

For restaurants, the economics move in the opposite direction.

Wages cannot simply be reduced. Commercial rents do not automatically fall when customer numbers decline. Food prices have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Yet if restaurants raise menu prices to protect their margins, they risk driving away even more price-sensitive customers.

The result is a difficult cycle:

Consumers spend less, restaurants raise prices; higher prices make consumers more cautious; falling foot traffic forces restaurants to cut staff and opening hours.

Eventually, some businesses have no choice but to leave the market.

The National, ACT and New Zealand First coalition can reasonably argue that many of these problems were already developing before 2023. That is true.

But political responsibility cannot belong to the government when the news is good and to its predecessor when the news is bad.

If economic growth, falling inflation and improving employment are presented as evidence of successful government policy, then rising business failures, weak consumption and strained small-business cash flow must also be part of the political conversation.

One particularly awkward fact for the Government is that it did not formally launch its review of the hospitality sector’s regulatory environment until October 2025. The Government itself acknowledged that businesses had been dealing with outdated, overlapping and confusing rules.

The review is welcome.

But it is fair to ask why a systematic examination of these rules came only after a substantial number of hospitality businesses had already disappeared.

For a large corporation, another administrative requirement may be an inconvenience. For a small restaurant employing a dozen people, another licence, compliance obligation, inspection or unexpected cost can have a direct impact on cash flow.

Governments often talk about reducing regulation and lowering the burden on business. What businesses ultimately need, however, is not another policy statement. They need lower costs and a more workable operating environment.

Tax policy raises a similar question.

In recent years, Inland Revenue has intensified the recovery of overdue tax and the use of liquidation proceedings. In the 2024/25 financial year, IRD referred 650 cases to the courts seeking liquidation orders, an increase of 49 per cent. At the end of June 2025, total tax and related debt stood at approximately NZ$9.3 billion.

From the Government’s perspective, collecting tax that is legally owed is entirely legitimate. Businesses that repeatedly fail to meet their tax obligations cannot simply expect compliant businesses to carry the cost.

But during a period of weak demand, how the Government deals with small businesses that have viable operations, assets and customers but temporarily lack sufficient cash flow is also a test of policy judgement.

If a restaurant is facing a short-term cash-flow crisis but still has a realistic prospect of recovery, should the response be immediate enforcement and liquidation, or should there be greater scope for restructuring and repayment over time?

This is not simply a question of whether taxes should be collected. It is a question of how a government balances fiscal discipline with the survival of otherwise viable small businesses.

That is one of the more difficult issues for the National-led coalition to avoid.

The Government cannot simultaneously emphasise entrepreneurship, small business and the private sector as the engines of the economy while leaving large numbers of small businesses to absorb the full impact of weak demand, high costs and fragile cash flow.

That said, it would be unfair to attribute New Zealand hospitality’s difficulties entirely to the National Party.

Before 2023, the industry had already been hit by Covid restrictions, supply-chain disruption, rising wages and high inflation. The Reserve Bank’s aggressive interest-rate increases to contain inflation subsequently placed additional pressure on household and business spending.

None of these problems was created by National.

The question for the National-led coalition is different: during its years in office, has it done enough, and done it quickly enough, to rebuild domestic demand?

That is what many business owners are ultimately interested in.

For a restaurant, a tax cut does not automatically put more customers through the door. Cutting government spending does not, by itself, fill another ten tables on a Friday night.

The hospitality industry needs consumers to regain confidence, employment to remain stable, mortgage pressures to ease, tourism to strengthen, and businesses to be able to hire, operate and invest without unnecessary cost and complexity.

Ultimately, economic policy comes back to a very simple question:

Do ordinary New Zealanders have enough money — and enough confidence — to walk into a restaurant and spend it?

There are signs of improvement in 2026. Hospitality sales have begun to recover, consumer sentiment has improved from its earlier lows, and lower interest rates are easing pressure on households.

But that does not mean the scars of the previous few years have disappeared.

When a restaurant that has operated for 20 or 30 years closes, it is not simply the owner who loses an income. Chefs, waiters, suppliers, landlords and neighbouring businesses can all lose revenue.

More importantly, long-established restaurants are part of a city’s commercial memory.

The closure of SPQR, the farewell to The Grove, the liquidation of Vivace and the departure of long-standing Chinese restaurants such as Dragonboat represent more than the failure of individual businesses.

They are economic barometers.

When the temperature falls, it is often not the large listed companies that feel the coldest first. It is the café on the corner, the family restaurant, the small retailer, the hairdresser and the independent business owner.

That is why the issue deserves attention ahead of the 2026 general election.

The Government can continue to argue that many of these problems were inherited. It can point to the pandemic, the international economy and the Reserve Bank’s interest-rate policy.

There is truth in all of those arguments.

But voters ultimately judge governments by outcomes, not explanations.

If National wants to retain the support of business owners, small traders and the middle class, it cannot simply tell them that the economy is getting better. It needs them to feel that running a business is genuinely easier than it was two years ago — not merely less difficult than it was at the worst point of the downturn.

For hospitality, the political judgement is ultimately straightforward.

When one restaurant closes, it would be simplistic to blame the Government. But when hundreds of businesses are failing in succession, the Government cannot pretend that this is simply the market taking its course.

The market determines which businesses survive. Government determines, to a significant extent, the environment in which they compete.

That is the question the National-led coalition government needs to answer before the 2026 election.

A restaurant closing is not a vote.

But if an increasing number of small-business owners conclude that the economic environment is becoming harder rather than easier, that sentiment will eventually find its way into the ballot box.

And that is what any government seeking re-election should be watching most closely.