December 9, 2025 • 11 mins
Chris Hipkins is hitting out at the Taxpayers' Union as it prepares to launch a campaign against Finance Minister Nicola Willis.
The lobby group is questioning Willis's track record on the economy.
Willis has responded, challenging chair and former finance minister Ruth Richardson to a debate.
The Labour Leader told John MacDonald the Taxpayers' Union has a view of "entrenched privilege".
He claims the organisation is funded by a group of rich people who want to keep all of their money.
Hipkins is also unimpressed by Willis’ decision to agree to the debate, which he says shows deep divisions among the National Party.
He calls it petty and says Willis should be focused on things like creating jobs.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Find out what opposition and Labor leader Chris Hipkins thinks
of them Morning.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Chris Today, John, how are you very well?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Now? Resource Management Act is going to be history replaced
with two separate acts. What's Labour's position on it? And
will you hold onto it? Will you not get rid
of it?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
We're still sort of working our way through the detail
of it. As all things. The devil's in the detail
and we only got it just you know, when it
was announced yesterday. But in principle we don't want to
see this merry go round continue where a government comes
in repeals and replaces, repeals and replaces, because it's just
we can't afford to keep doing that. So will we
keep it, yes, Will we make changes to it? Quite possibly,
(00:54):
But we're going to try as we can through the
next twelve months as it goes through the parliamentary process
to find as much common ground with the government as
we can because in an area like this, which has
such a big long term impact on the country, I
think stability and certainty as much as we can achieve
it would be a very good thing.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
I heard Chris Bishop say that he had consulted at
least labor on it, but then I heard you at
different points with some sort of niggle about not being consulted.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Well, I mean, Chris Bishop has a different view of
consultation and sort of cross party conveensers. In his mind,
that seems to be I'm going to tell you what
I'm going to do and you should agree with me.
But that isn't a consultation or collaboration. So we're very
open through the next part of the process, which isn't
control by the government, it's controlled by the SOLI Committee.
We're very open to the idea that if we can
(01:43):
find some common ground and get something that could be enduring,
there would be better for the country. Then the IRMA
continuing to be a political football.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Just before we joined US, I was sharing a message
from Kevin who said that this change is just going
to give developers, or allowed allowed developers to write roughshot
over the environment. What's your response to that.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
I think environmental protection is important. We need to make
sure we're protecting the environment for future generations. There are
you know, RMA deals with big issues like who can
use water and under what circumstances, who can build where
and under what circumstances. These aren't insignificant issues, and even
on something is fundamental as the government describes it as
property rights, there are conflicting property rights. So you can say, well,
(02:27):
you know, I have this piece of land, I want
to build a ten story building on it. The person
who's got a single story house next door is going
to be affected by that, and they might have a
view on that. So there are going to be competing
property rights, and so just how we manage that is
pretty fundamental to the success or otherwise of these reforms.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Right when you were police monister, do you have recollection
or a recollection of traveling in the Kakoda area in
the back of a car with the police commissioner.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Absolutely? I remember that trip well. When I became Minister
of Police, they hit the road. I visited every police
district in the country and the commission who was with
me for.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Most of that did he mention Jevin mcskimming.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Gemen Miskimming would have been discussed. We discussed as senior
leadership team and so on his assertion that he discussed
the issues around Sevin Mickskimming having an affair is simply wrong.
I have no recollection of that he for coming up,
and I certainly have no recollection of any of the
very serious things that have subsequently come to light ever
(03:26):
being discussed there.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
But no, having no recollection doesn't mean that there is
some doesn't mean something didn't happen, did it.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
I had a press secretary with me in the car
at the time as well for that entire trip. She
also there's pretty adamant that this was never discussed in
the car. So you know, Andrew cost there has a
different view to everybody else. He has a different view
to me, different view to the current Minister of Police,
different view to the Peputy Public Service Commission, a different
(03:56):
view to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. I think he's wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Why do you think he has a different view.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Well, people are going to form their own judgments on that, but.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
You're pretty damning it wants your judgment.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Well, I think that there was a culture within the
police leadership team of downplaying the significance of the complaint
that had complaints, multiple that were being made against Jevin
mcskimming and that was completely unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
So what did you take from the interview that Andrew
Costa gave the other day, How did you think he
came out of it? How did you think he came
out of it?
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Well, I was greatly disappointed. I watched the interview because
I wanted to hear what he had to say. The
week before that I had seen his apology and his
acceptance of responsibility, and I actually thought I gave him
credit for that. I thought he had done the right
thing there. I thought he undid a lot of that
in the way he approached that interview on Sunday, he
was continuing to talk about Jevin mcskimming as if he
(04:58):
was the victim. He was continuing to speak about miss Zed,
you know, the woman at the center of all of this,
with a language that was just totally inappropriate, such as well,
including accusing her of being hysterical and so on. And
I just think it brought into the narrative that clearly
is the problem here. The police had created this narrative
(05:20):
that she was just crazy, that they had done nothing wrong,
and that they therefore were totally justified in not taking
it seriously. And that was just totally wrong.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
When you say that you're certain that Jevin mc skimming
was mentioned in the car in terms of talking about
the scene of management team. Can you remember his name
being mentioned?
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Oh? No, I can't remember the name being mentioned. But
I mean I'd just become Minister of Police, so part
of what we were doing in the car journeys I
was getting to understand that the police operations. At that
point he was a non statutory deputy. So one of
the things that I do recall Andrew Costra and I
talking about is who does what within the police, So
I'm sure he would have been mentioned in that context.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Do you back Mark Mitchell's recollection to the extent that
he backs yours?
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Yes, I do, and I've got no re into question
them otherwise, even on issues like the emails, for example,
where there seems to be seen some discrepancy there. My inclination,
having been a former minister, is that Mark Mitchell is
being absolutely sincere there. Every minister has to rely on
the staff in their office and the way they manage
their emails. I mean, no minister in government are sitting
(06:27):
there clearing all of their own emails all day every day.
They have to rely on your staff. And I think
what Mark Mitchell has said is almost certainly correct, almost well,
I mean, I can never verify it for true, for absolutely.
He can never verify what I'm saying for absolute. But
I'm absolutely accepting what he's saying. He's accepting what I'm saying,
(06:48):
and I think that does show that there is one
person here who has a different recollection of events compared
to everybody else.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Have you both spoken with each other about this in
the last few.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Days, Mark Mitchell? Now, I haven't spoken to Mark Mitchell.
I've only had one briefing and that was just before
all of this was made public, and that was with
Judith Collins, the Attorney General who ran through the findings
of the IPCA report and the Public Service Commission's review.
She ran through those with me. So you haven't discussions
(07:18):
with the government on it.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Right, You haven't compared notes on timing?
Speaker 3 (07:22):
No, absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
How do you feel about Nichola Willis getting into this
debate with former Finance Minister Ruth Richardson.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
I think it's petty. In fact, I think she's got
better things to do with her time. I'm surprised that
she's decided that this is a priority for her. Surely
getting people back to work and getting the economy growing again,
is what she should be really focused on.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
How do you feel about Ruth Richardson being a former
National Finance minister do and what she's doing getting involved
in this campaign basically trying to get rid of Nichola.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Willis what shows once again the deep divisions within the
National Party. They've always been there. They're more interested in
fighting amongst themselves rather than helping out ordinary everyday New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Well, I could point to a few examples where it's
happened in the Labor Party, not that are not that
long ago. So you think that Ruth Richardson should keep
her nose out of it.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
I think the Taxpayers Unions is wrong on so many levels.
And you know they have a view of entrenched privilege.
You know that they want to look after the people
who have lots of money who pay their bills. You know,
the taxpayers supposed so called Taxpayers Union funded by a
bunch of very rich people who want to keep all
of their money and don't want to do anything to
support the rest of the people in the country.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
All right, what's your relation to the Supreme Court ruling
that people providing full time care for disabled family members
deserve to be paid and recognized as employees.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
It's a pretty watershed decision. It's a pretty big decision,
and it's one that we need to take some time
to really digest. I'm going to be interested in seeing
what the advice the government gets on it is and
watch what course of action they choose to take on that.
I'm sort of reserving judgment on that. It is big
for those cares. It shows that the government were wrong
when they attacked people caring for people with disabilities in
(09:03):
the way they did. But it's also potentially has very
wide ranging ramification. So I think we need to take
the time to digest it carefully.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
You sound a bit nervous about it.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Well, it's going to have a very large cost associated
with it, so of course anyone who wants to be
in government is going to tread carefully about that. We
need to really digest the full implications of it before
we rush forward and form a view on us.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
So the person listened to this right now, what is
the scale just given an idea of the scale of
cost that this could mean.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Well, it's not just the cost of people with disabilities.
If you're starting to say that people who are caring
for others who are dependent and who are in need
should be paid for that work, even if they're family members.
It potentially actually creates a precedent that goes wider than
just those with disabilities. So those are all of the things,
and that could be a very very large number. So
(09:59):
if someone caring for elderly parents who are no longer
able to look after themselves, are there things in this
judgment that will potentially have implications for them? These are
all questions we're going to need to consider very carefully
before we rush to judgment on it.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Do you agree with the Supreme Court?
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Well, I haven't had a chance to digest it properly. Well,
but but do I think that people who care for
those with disabilities deserve more support and more recognition for
the work that they do? Yes, I do.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
That's easy to say.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
But have the.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Court got it right? I'm not sure yet.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
What would convince you?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Well? I want to Harman, I haven't had a chance
to read the full judgments. I want to do that
before I formed a final view on it.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
All right, appreciating time as always, it's the last catch
up of the year. So what would be the highlights
of your year? I think I know one of them.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Well, you know, on personal level, obviously getting my fiance
agreeing to marry me very highlight.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
And an achievement, had a pretty good achievement.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
Yeah yeah, I reckon. But you know, on the workfront,
we've had a good year as the Labor team. We
end the year and good spirits with neck and meet
with the National Party. That's something that I'm really happy with.
We've announced a couple of new policies. I'm really proud
of the three feet doctors visits policy, which I know
you New Zealanders are welcoming. So it's been a good
year for labor.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Well, what's happening for the break much planned?
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Yeah, no, We've got a beach house on the Carpity coast,
so that's where we'll be hanging out for the summer holidays.
And I think they can't wait to just get my
feet into this end brilliant.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
We'll talk in the new year and thank you for
your availability through this year. Chris Hauptins appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Cheers, John, good to talk to you, and Merry Christmas.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Merry Christmas do as well, and happy new Year.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
For more from Caterbory Mornings with John McDonald. Listen live
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Find out what opposition and Labor leader Chris Hipkins thinks
of them Morning.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Chris Today, John, how are you very well?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Now? Resource Management Act is going to be history replaced
with two separate acts. What's Labour's position on it? And
will you hold onto it? Will you not get rid
of it?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
We're still sort of working our way through the detail
of it. As all things. The devil's in the detail
and we only got it just you know, when it
was announced yesterday. But in principle we don't want to
see this merry go round continue where a government comes
in repeals and replaces, repeals and replaces, because it's just
we can't afford to keep doing that. So will we
keep it, yes, Will we make changes to it? Quite possibly,
(00:54):
But we're going to try as we can through the
next twelve months as it goes through the parliamentary process
to find as much common ground with the government as
we can because in an area like this, which has
such a big long term impact on the country, I
think stability and certainty as much as we can achieve
it would be a very good thing.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
I heard Chris Bishop say that he had consulted at
least labor on it, but then I heard you at
different points with some sort of niggle about not being consulted.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Well, I mean, Chris Bishop has a different view of
consultation and sort of cross party conveensers. In his mind,
that seems to be I'm going to tell you what
I'm going to do and you should agree with me.
But that isn't a consultation or collaboration. So we're very
open through the next part of the process, which isn't
control by the government, it's controlled by the SOLI Committee.
We're very open to the idea that if we can
(01:43):
find some common ground and get something that could be enduring,
there would be better for the country. Then the IRMA
continuing to be a political football.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Just before we joined US, I was sharing a message
from Kevin who said that this change is just going
to give developers, or allowed allowed developers to write roughshot
over the environment. What's your response to that.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
I think environmental protection is important. We need to make
sure we're protecting the environment for future generations. There are
you know, RMA deals with big issues like who can
use water and under what circumstances, who can build where
and under what circumstances. These aren't insignificant issues, and even
on something is fundamental as the government describes it as
property rights, there are conflicting property rights. So you can say, well,
(02:27):
you know, I have this piece of land, I want
to build a ten story building on it. The person
who's got a single story house next door is going
to be affected by that, and they might have a
view on that. So there are going to be competing
property rights, and so just how we manage that is
pretty fundamental to the success or otherwise of these reforms.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Right when you were police monister, do you have recollection
or a recollection of traveling in the Kakoda area in
the back of a car with the police commissioner.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Absolutely? I remember that trip well. When I became Minister
of Police, they hit the road. I visited every police
district in the country and the commission who was with
me for.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Most of that did he mention Jevin mcskimming.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Gemen Miskimming would have been discussed. We discussed as senior
leadership team and so on his assertion that he discussed
the issues around Sevin Mickskimming having an affair is simply wrong.
I have no recollection of that he for coming up,
and I certainly have no recollection of any of the
very serious things that have subsequently come to light ever
(03:26):
being discussed there.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
But no, having no recollection doesn't mean that there is
some doesn't mean something didn't happen, did it.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
I had a press secretary with me in the car
at the time as well for that entire trip. She
also there's pretty adamant that this was never discussed in
the car. So you know, Andrew cost there has a
different view to everybody else. He has a different view
to me, different view to the current Minister of Police,
different view to the Peputy Public Service Commission, a different
(03:56):
view to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. I think he's wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Why do you think he has a different view.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Well, people are going to form their own judgments on that, but.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
You're pretty damning it wants your judgment.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Well, I think that there was a culture within the
police leadership team of downplaying the significance of the complaint
that had complaints, multiple that were being made against Jevin
mcskimming and that was completely unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
So what did you take from the interview that Andrew
Costa gave the other day, How did you think he
came out of it? How did you think he came
out of it?
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Well, I was greatly disappointed. I watched the interview because
I wanted to hear what he had to say. The
week before that I had seen his apology and his
acceptance of responsibility, and I actually thought I gave him
credit for that. I thought he had done the right
thing there. I thought he undid a lot of that
in the way he approached that interview on Sunday, he
was continuing to talk about Jevin mcskimming as if he
(04:58):
was the victim. He was continuing to speak about miss Zed,
you know, the woman at the center of all of this,
with a language that was just totally inappropriate, such as well,
including accusing her of being hysterical and so on. And
I just think it brought into the narrative that clearly
is the problem here. The police had created this narrative
(05:20):
that she was just crazy, that they had done nothing wrong,
and that they therefore were totally justified in not taking
it seriously. And that was just totally wrong.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
When you say that you're certain that Jevin mc skimming
was mentioned in the car in terms of talking about
the scene of management team. Can you remember his name
being mentioned?
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Oh? No, I can't remember the name being mentioned. But
I mean I'd just become Minister of Police, so part
of what we were doing in the car journeys I
was getting to understand that the police operations. At that
point he was a non statutory deputy. So one of
the things that I do recall Andrew Costra and I
talking about is who does what within the police, So
I'm sure he would have been mentioned in that context.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Do you back Mark Mitchell's recollection to the extent that
he backs yours?
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Yes, I do, and I've got no re into question
them otherwise, even on issues like the emails, for example,
where there seems to be seen some discrepancy there. My inclination,
having been a former minister, is that Mark Mitchell is
being absolutely sincere there. Every minister has to rely on
the staff in their office and the way they manage
their emails. I mean, no minister in government are sitting
(06:27):
there clearing all of their own emails all day every day.
They have to rely on your staff. And I think
what Mark Mitchell has said is almost certainly correct, almost well,
I mean, I can never verify it for true, for absolutely.
He can never verify what I'm saying for absolute. But
I'm absolutely accepting what he's saying. He's accepting what I'm saying,
(06:48):
and I think that does show that there is one
person here who has a different recollection of events compared
to everybody else.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Have you both spoken with each other about this in
the last few.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Days, Mark Mitchell? Now, I haven't spoken to Mark Mitchell.
I've only had one briefing and that was just before
all of this was made public, and that was with
Judith Collins, the Attorney General who ran through the findings
of the IPCA report and the Public Service Commission's review.
She ran through those with me. So you haven't discussions
(07:18):
with the government on it.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Right, You haven't compared notes on timing?
Speaker 3 (07:22):
No, absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
How do you feel about Nichola Willis getting into this
debate with former Finance Minister Ruth Richardson.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
I think it's petty. In fact, I think she's got
better things to do with her time. I'm surprised that
she's decided that this is a priority for her. Surely
getting people back to work and getting the economy growing again,
is what she should be really focused on.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
How do you feel about Ruth Richardson being a former
National Finance minister do and what she's doing getting involved
in this campaign basically trying to get rid of Nichola.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Willis what shows once again the deep divisions within the
National Party. They've always been there. They're more interested in
fighting amongst themselves rather than helping out ordinary everyday New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Well, I could point to a few examples where it's
happened in the Labor Party, not that are not that
long ago. So you think that Ruth Richardson should keep
her nose out of it.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
I think the Taxpayers Unions is wrong on so many levels.
And you know they have a view of entrenched privilege.
You know that they want to look after the people
who have lots of money who pay their bills. You know,
the taxpayers supposed so called Taxpayers Union funded by a
bunch of very rich people who want to keep all
of their money and don't want to do anything to
support the rest of the people in the country.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
All right, what's your relation to the Supreme Court ruling
that people providing full time care for disabled family members
deserve to be paid and recognized as employees.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
It's a pretty watershed decision. It's a pretty big decision,
and it's one that we need to take some time
to really digest. I'm going to be interested in seeing
what the advice the government gets on it is and
watch what course of action they choose to take on that.
I'm sort of reserving judgment on that. It is big
for those cares. It shows that the government were wrong
when they attacked people caring for people with disabilities in
(09:03):
the way they did. But it's also potentially has very
wide ranging ramification. So I think we need to take
the time to digest it carefully.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
You sound a bit nervous about it.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Well, it's going to have a very large cost associated
with it, so of course anyone who wants to be
in government is going to tread carefully about that. We
need to really digest the full implications of it before
we rush forward and form a view on us.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
So the person listened to this right now, what is
the scale just given an idea of the scale of
cost that this could mean.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Well, it's not just the cost of people with disabilities.
If you're starting to say that people who are caring
for others who are dependent and who are in need
should be paid for that work, even if they're family members.
It potentially actually creates a precedent that goes wider than
just those with disabilities. So those are all of the things,
and that could be a very very large number. So
(09:59):
if someone caring for elderly parents who are no longer
able to look after themselves, are there things in this
judgment that will potentially have implications for them? These are
all questions we're going to need to consider very carefully
before we rush to judgment on it.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Do you agree with the Supreme Court?
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Well, I haven't had a chance to digest it properly. Well,
but but do I think that people who care for
those with disabilities deserve more support and more recognition for
the work that they do? Yes, I do.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
That's easy to say.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
But have the.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Court got it right? I'm not sure yet.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
What would convince you?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Well? I want to Harman, I haven't had a chance
to read the full judgments. I want to do that
before I formed a final view on it.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
All right, appreciating time as always, it's the last catch
up of the year. So what would be the highlights
of your year? I think I know one of them.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Well, you know, on personal level, obviously getting my fiance
agreeing to marry me very highlight.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
And an achievement, had a pretty good achievement.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
Yeah yeah, I reckon. But you know, on the workfront,
we've had a good year as the Labor team. We
end the year and good spirits with neck and meet
with the National Party. That's something that I'm really happy with.
We've announced a couple of new policies. I'm really proud
of the three feet doctors visits policy, which I know
you New Zealanders are welcoming. So it's been a good
year for labor.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Well, what's happening for the break much planned?
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Yeah, no, We've got a beach house on the Carpity coast,
so that's where we'll be hanging out for the summer holidays.
And I think they can't wait to just get my
feet into this end brilliant.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
We'll talk in the new year and thank you for
your availability through this year. Chris Hauptins appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Cheers, John, good to talk to you, and Merry Christmas.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Merry Christmas do as well, and happy new Year.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
For more from Caterbory Mornings with John McDonald. Listen live
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com