Farmers Market Taranaki Celebrates 20 Year Anniversary With Pop-Up At Currie St 15 And 22 June
Farmers Market Board Chair, Carl Freeman, says "It's exciting to celebrate 20 years of Farmers Market Taranaki and it is fitting that we will do this at Currie Street, one of the original homes of the market. We would like to say a huge thank you to all of our stallholders past and present as well as our market coordinators, board members and organisations like the NPDC, Venture Taranaki and Toi Foundation who have supported the market and helped it grow significantly."
"We'd like to share our appreciation to the stallholders who have attended the market regularly since the very first market; The Blueberry Patch, Mac Snack Organics and Natural Lea, as well as Amadinah, G&J Fish and Carpe Diem Farm, all of whom have attended the market for over ten years."
Farmers Market Trust board member Jules van Costello says, "Farmers markets play a vital role in every local food ecosystem, allowing access to great value local food but also providing a platform that allows small food businesses to thrive and succeed."
Farmers Market Taranaki is held, rain or shine every Sunday from 9am 'till midday and other than the Covid lockdowns and public holidays like Christmas and New Years Day, has never been cancelled because of weather. Since 2005, Farmers Market Taranaki has grown significantly in size and variety, championing the ethos of fresh local food and celebrating the talents of Taranaki growers and artisans. In May 2024, they were awarded 'Farmers Market of the Year' in the annual Organic NZ awards.
Farmers Market Taranaki will be held in Currie Street on Sunday 15 and 22 June from 9am until midday and will return to its home at Huatoki Plaza from Sunday 29 June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Covid spending can be justified, despite Treasury report
Coverage of this report has focused on an implication that Treasury were opposed to much of the Covid-19 response and had sought to limit the extent of Government spending. Others have noted that the report does not say this directly, though the selective quotes from advice at different stages do not exactly discourage this reading. In the interests of full disclosure, I was an adviser to the Minister of Finance Grant Robertson from December 2020 onwards. Unsurprisingly, my perspective often differed from Treasury (which in some ways was a key required skill for that job), and readers may reasonably take that into account in the criticisms that follow. The risks highlighted in the report around the use of fiscal policy tend to underline the view that 'cyclical management should mostly be left to monetary policy run by an independent central bank'. This is not a new position – it is such an established aspect of economic orthodoxy that it is known as the 'consensus assignment'. Finance Minister Grant Robertson during the pandemic. Photo / Pool Why, then, would we use fiscal policy in response to a shock? Recent decades have seen very low interest rates, and therefore situations where central banks cannot cut rates to the level they believe necessary to support the economy. This issue is known as the 'effective lower bound' and was one of the major preoccupations of economic debates following the global financial crisis. However, it was clear that Treasury had done limited thinking on how fiscal policy should be used in a crisis. This was despite the fact that the official cash rate was just 1% as the pandemic approached. I recall my surprise at being briefed on a work programme to review Treasury's macro-economic framework – thinking that I would have assumed it had already taken place sometime in the previous decade. At different stages Covid-19 required spending to support overall economic activity (i.e. stimulus) as well as more targeted spending for workers and businesses directly affected by lockdowns. The LTIB notes that Treasury did support large-scale spending responses in the initial stages, but then 'advised shifting towards more targeted fiscal support and recommended against further stimulus from Budget 2022 onwards'. Covid-19-related supports had continued during this period, because large numbers of New Zealanders continued to be affected by Covid-19, most notably during the Auckland lockdowns. But the purpose of this spending was to support people and businesses during a time when normal economic activity was not possible, not to stimulate more economic activity. Despite the large initial cost of the wage subsidy scheme in 2019/20, the largest year for Covid-related spending was actually 2021/22, owing to the combination of business support programmes and the ramping up of the national health response. Former Beehive staffer Toby Moore. Photo / Supplied A further, separate category of spending is funding allocated through the Budget operating allowance, which is typically a mix of new spending and the increased cost of existing spending (cost pressures). In late 2021, the operating allowances for upcoming budgets were increased compared to what was previously signalled. Treasury has at times raised concerns that adjusting future allowances might undermine credibility; however, it was not an uncommon occurrence for parts of Treasury to raise such concerns and for other parts of Treasury to put advice to the Minister suggesting that allowance should increase. It is important to understand that budget allowances are not an end in themselves. Adhering to previously planned allowances come what may does not amount to a sensible fiscal strategy, and governments tend to put more focus on whether those allowances are contributing to them keeping debt or deficit levels in line with their intended objectives. The operating allowance for Budget 2022 was large, at $6 billion. But based on forecasts at the time, that level of spending was consistent with Government debt peaking at a much lower level than earlier forecasts, and the Government's books returning to surplus much earlier, in 2023/24. At the point Treasury states that they were not advising further stimulus, this was very much the Government's view as well. Economic and fiscal forecasts were looking much different from mid-2022 onward, and the economy continued to slow as the Reserve Bank tightened interest rates in response to rising inflation of the sort that was experienced around the world. While larger proportions of budget spending during this period were trying to maintain existing public services in the face of high levels of inflation, the other side of this story is the fact that forecast tax revenue has continually failed to eventuate. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern during the pandemic. Photo / Mark Tantrum Ahead of Budget 2024, Nicola Willis alluded to a further downgrade in economic and fiscal forecasts, saying 'Sadly, I've learned to dread what comes out of the forecasters' mouths when they come into my office'. If nothing else, this is a sentiment shared across successive offices of the Minister of Finance. Repeated downward revisions of the tax-to-GDP ratio over time means that Budget 2025 forecasts for the current fiscal year are a full 3.3% of GDP lower than what forecasts in mid-2022 had anticipated. This has contributed to OBEGAL surplus getting pushed further out in the forecast period (and more recently, only showing surpluses on the Government's self-invented measure, OBEGALx). If decision-makers had cared only about inflation and nothing else, fiscal policy could potentially have done a lot more to reduce economic activity. With the Government not willing to resort to tax increases, more contractionary fiscal policy would have meant absorbing more of the burden of constraining demand through deteriorating public services, with the Reserve Bank having to do less through the OCR. Given the ongoing pressure on the health system today, we should be glad this was not the path that was taken. But far from being critical of this Budget spending, Treasury was also raising concerns that spending was not high enough. In the half-year update in 2022, Treasury expressed concern about what it described as the largest fall in real government consumption since 1987. As late as October 2022 Treasury was advising the Minister of Finance to increase the allowance for the next Budget from $4.5 billion to $5b. This incongruous array of advice was not a matter of mutinous radicals seizing control of the Government's lead economic adviser. Treasury was trying to tread the same narrow path that the Government was. The economy as a whole was hitting up against its capacity, and vulnerable New Zealanders needed targeted support towards the cost of living. Every dollar of additional spending risked adding to inflation and every dollar of spending that was withheld meant that rising costs would hit core government services or households directly. It is appropriate that we try to learn lessons from the experience of Covid-19. It is reasonable for people to disagree with some aspects of the fiscal response and it is highly unlikely that every decision taken was the right one. But the economic response was overwhelmingly guided by officials' advice rather than contrary to it. There may now be unease among some public servants about the level of debt that New Zealand assumed or the spending pressures that it is facing. But the other side of that debt is the businesses that are still operating, the people who were kept in work and the loss of friends and family members that were avoided because NZ chose to support each other through that most complex and challenging time. Toby Moore is a doctoral candidate at Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington and was previously a senior adviser to former Finance Minister Grant Robertson. He is also on the Labour Party's policy council, though the views here are his own
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
‘You are surrounded by Gordon Ramsays, and you become Gordon ... otherwise you get trampled': TV chef Mike Van De Elzen
On the Money Talks podcast this week, Van De Elzen talks about growing up in Henderson, starting out in hospitality and the path that took him to the top of the chef game in London. It was a path that almost broke him. He got his big break in London in the early 2000s at a restaurant called Bank, which was 'the busiest, most-talked-about restaurant in London', he says. 'I wanted to work there because it was the hardest. And if you survive there, then you'll make it anywhere. So I started working there as a sous chef and made my way up to senior sous chef. I was in charge of 140 chefs.' Van De Elzen worked relentlessly day and night for a full year. 'It's so full-on. And you are surrounded by Gordon Ramsays, and you become Gordon yourself, because otherwise you get trampled upon.' 'I didn't see day. I didn't see night, I didn't see my wife. I worked for an entire year in this restaurant, and the only day it closed was Christmas Day.' That day off turned out to be the trigger for a complete breakdown. 'We went to a friend's place for Christmas lunch and he said: 'Hey Mike, can you just check the turkey in the oven?' 'I said 'No problem' and I went into the kitchen, opened up the oven. The turkey was completely raw.' 'Something just broke inside me. 'I felt really, I felt sick. I couldn't stand. My wife took me home and I slept for four days.' On the podcast, Van De Elzen talks about his return to New Zealand, setting up restaurants and breaking into TV. He shares his passion for educating young people about food and talks about his battle with cancer in 2018. Listen to the full episode to hear more from Money Talks is a podcast run by the NZ Herald. It isn't about personal finance and isn't about economics – it's just well-known New Zealanders talking about money and sharing some stories about the impact it's had on their lives and how it has shaped them. The series is hosted by Liam Dann, business editor-at-large for the Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003. Money Talks is available on iHeartRadio, Spotify, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
The Spinoff
21 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: The big ‘G' word that Luxon doesn't want to say about Palestine
While cabinet spends the next month deciding whether to recognise Palestinian statehood, the opposition is more eager to know if New Zealand's done too little, too late. Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. The government seemed wholly deflated during Tuesday's question time. Education minister Erica Stanford let the opposition drown her out with heckles while she tried to boast about receiving positive feedback like 'woohoo', building and construction minister Chris Penk bragged about sheds, and Andy Foster showed up with a big bandage on his head. Why? Foster never replied to a text from The Spinoff, so we'll never know. Speaker Gerry Brownlee seemed particularly fed up with the vibes, which was perhaps a bad omen of troubles to come. When Labour leader Chris Hipkins posed his usual starter question (does he stand by his government's statements and actions) to prime minister Christopher Luxon, who replied with just a 'yes', Brownlee asked the House, well, what's the point of that? 'What more can there be?' Brownlee wondered, with an air of desperation. 'Well, if you hold your breath, you'll find out,' Hipkins replied. Give it a go, Brownlee encouraged him, but there are still four more questions on this list that ask the same thing. After Hipkins followed up with a supplementary on whether Luxon stood by finance minister Nicola Willis saying that people who have lost their jobs 'shouldn't take it personally', Brownlee let him know his work was 'skillfully done'. But Luxon didn't want to talk about that. He pointed to a recently released Treasury report, highlighted earlier in the session by housing minister Chris Bishop (who wore three different ministerial hats while two of his caucus mates were away), which put the cost of Aotearoa's Covid-19 response at $66bn. And while Chippy was still keen to chat about employment, Luxon was stuck on the impacts of the Covid hangover, and let Hipkins know everyone should start calling him the '66 billion dollar man!' 'Because when I grew up as a kid, there was a show called The Six Million Dollar Man, and this member is the 66 billion dollar man!' Luxon paused for effect, but when he received very little reaction from his coalition members, Labour's Kieran McAnulty used the moment to outshine him: 'No one laughed!' Next up was Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, who questioned Luxon over the government's recent announcement that it would consider recognising Palestinian statehood. His position, as he's oft repeated, is that Hamas must release their Israeli hostages, but Swarbrick wanted to know whether he was aware of the attempts to release these hostages, and the 10,000 Palestinians living in Israeli prisons. 'That's not what I've been briefed on,' Luxon replied, while NZ First's Shane Jones was more gung-ho about his point of view on the matter. 'Fiction!' Jones cried repeatedly. And when Swarbrick questioned whether Luxon was aware of Aotearoa's obligations under the Genocide Convention, he warned her not to throw that 'genocide' term around so willy nilly. So, she pressed him on whether he believed that was the appropriate term, but the PM couldn't quite wrap his lips around it, so he went with 'humanitarian catastrophe'. And then deputy prime minister David Seymour, puffed up on his perch next to Luxon, decided to butt in as usual. 'Point of order, Mr Speaker,' Seymour started – this member [aka Swarbrick] has just returned to her seat which is adorned with a Palestinian scarf, and I invite you to consider what this House might look like if everyone took a side in a global conflict and made that visible. 'No member should be allowed to do such a thing, particularly when you yourself have forbidden members from wearing tiny pins on their lapels,' he finished, while his caucus colleague Simon Court hastily removed his Act Party pin. 'I think you make a very good point,' Brownlee began, until a defiant Swarbrick swiped the keffiyeh draped over her seat and wore it around her neck instead. 'Stay warm,' Brownlee told her. 'We'll move on.' In a House where there are clear favourites in the eyes of the speaker, Swarbrick is indefinitely near the bottom of his list. Later, Te Pāti Māori's Debbie Ngarewa-Packer made her own attempt to pull Luxon's heartstrings over Palestine. But her questions on whether the PM could 'justify the targeted killings of journalists in Gaza' were shot down by Brownlee and Luxon, who told her that the prime minister of New Zealand is only responsible for New Zealand, and Seymour let her know she was 'slow on the rules'. Fair (not from Seymour), as question time is the opportunity to hold ministers to account on the issues that fall within their ministerial responsibilities. But a humanitarian catastrophe, as described earlier, can understandably leave a lot of people looking for leadership, and the barracking from the opposition showed that the government's pussyfooting around Israel has made them look, in their eyes, kinda pussy. 'Surely you can condemn that?' cried the Greens' Steve Abel, also adorned in a keffiyeh. 'Genocide apologist!' And when Luxon tried to remind the House the government had already committed $37m in humanitarian aid, the opposition simply wanted to know 'how much of it got in?', but Luxon didn't seem to be briefed on that. Eventually, the heckling from the opposition turned into roars for Luxon to 'grow a spine', 'show some spine' and not be 'spineless' – it's just ironic that the quietest person, who is usually the loudest, was the one later reprimanded for bringing any spine into the conversation at all.
