September 16, 2024 • 11 mins
The Prime Minister is making no apologies for curtailing the civil rights of gang members.
Documents show Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith initially rejected a police request to ban gang patches in the homes of repeat offenders, but then changed his mind.
That's despite objections from his own ministry, Te Puni Kokiri, and the Privacy Commissioner.
Christopher Luxon told Mike Hosking he's not concerned about gang members losing their rights.
He says gang members make up one quarter of one percent of the population, but are responsible for almost a fifth of serious violent crimes and homicides and almost a quarter of all firearms offences.
He’s reminding all judges the Government is in charge, as it looks to crack down on sentencing laws.
Reforms to legislation is being introduced in Parliament this week.
New aggravating factors are also being introduced, to include adults exploiting children by aiding or abetting their offending, and for posting criminal activity on social media.
Luxon told Hosking the decision of courts will reflect the intentions of Parliament, not judges.
He says they can have their say on the legislation during the Select Committee process.
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 (00:00):
The Prime Minister is with us for this Tuesday morning.
Very good morning to you.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Good morning, Mike. How are you today?
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Very well? Indeed, I've got a scandal for you. Are
you ready for a scandal?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hit me with it.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
I'll hit you with it in just a mind. And
I need to ask you first about about yesterday's you
have you're sentencing and all that sort of stuff. Lead's
story in the Herald this morning is about the pushback
on gang patches. Does it amaze you that we can't
stop whining about the problem and the damage gangs do,
and the moment a government does something about it, we
whine some more about their civil rights? What the hell's
going on?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, I don't care. It's actually you know, we make
no apologize for being tough on game members. The stats
that I always think about is game members are one
quarter of one percent of the population. As I tried
to say yesterday, you know that almost a fifth of
all serious violent crime homicides, I think they're twenty four percent,
almost a quarter of all Arms Act defenses I mean
illegal guns and kidnapping an induction. So, you know, if
(00:53):
you want to be serious about having a twenty thousand
people a fewer victims of violent crime, then you've got
to start there, and that's exactly what we're doing. So yep,
people are giving us some grief about it, saying that
we passed a bill through this Sleik Committee, which we did.
Police actually identifies an additional tool that would help them,
which was around these you know, wearing patches inside cars
and or houses, and frankly, it's consequences for a small
(01:16):
group of people, but if that also enables police to
have separate legal activity, that's a bonus. And frankly, we
want an asymmetric and we want to be harassing gangs
and that's what we're going to do.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Do you worry one of the suggestions is you will
encourage your words, not mine the cumulative concurren thing with judges.
Do you worry about the judiciary pushing.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Back, Well, again, that's why in Parliament we're going to
say that those rules, you know, that's what we're trying
to do with the same thing laws that we want
to pass as a result, and Parliament is sovereign in
New Zealand and that's why we're not leaving it to
judges just to set their own discounts for a number
of reasons for why. We've seen some pretty horrific cases
where offenders are god off for quite serious crimes with
(01:57):
what I think the public would say and victims would say,
it doesn't feel fear. And there's been some very hectic
discounts that doesn't reflect the harm cause. So you know,
that's why we're capping what judges can do at forty percent.
We're we're getting rid of repeated discounts for young people
and also remorse. You can show remorse once, but you
don't get to got multiple times. And frankly, if you're
going to be hurting people who are sole charge workers
(02:19):
or on a home own business, you know where they
live above the shot. All of that, that's your aggravating
factors that the judge has taken consideration. But yeah, we
want to encourage use of chum. They're not concurrence sentencing
to the people. Actually that it all stacks up. And
then the other bit might I think is important in
that sceencing all pieces that you get a lot of
people who only pled not guilty at the very end
(02:40):
of the court process and you've read twul size the victim.
But importantly you've way through this huge amount of court
time and slade the process up. So we're going to say, right,
the sliding scale for early guilty please, you know, so
you can get up to a twenty five percent discount
within that forty percent cap, but if you want to
do later on, it's going to be five percent. So
all that is sort of designed to say, Look, yeah,
(03:00):
we've got to go tough on the gangs because our
big driver of violent crime. You we've got to sort
out the serious own to send them approvement police officers.
We've got more creations officers and prison beds coming. And
we've also got changes to our center to the laws
as well.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Yeah, what I'm getting around. I'll give you another example
in the moment. I've been surprised and surprised at the
number of people in this country who seem to be
apologists for all that's wrong with it, and the wait
Tangi Tribunal is a very good example. And then I
come to the Public Service, the Ministry of Justice and
the League on the Treaty Principals Bill. You haven't got
to the bottom of it apparently as to who did it?
(03:34):
How do you function as a government if you're getting
pushed back from the judiciary, push back from the Waitangi Tribunal,
and a public service that isn't adhering to what you're
wanting to do.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, you have to be. You have a responsibility in
government and I don't think you know, sometimes cabinets and
ministers have been chrystal clear at the center about what
they are here to do and what they are three
things in their portfolios are affixiated and focused on to deliver.
And as a result, I think the public services often
had sort of not enough clarity. So that happened with
the last lot a lot, and you know, then there
(04:05):
is lessons of the courts. So that's why we've seen
us move on things like make legislation, for example on
the on customary rights, because we actually want that to
be reflective of what Parliament intended that legislation to be
back in three thousand. Len W's got the balance right. Likewise,
you're seeing us here with discounting. We're not leaving it
to judge just to just you know, people sixty sixty
five percent discounts. And in fact, if people want to
(04:27):
contribute on the selectmmittee process for this legislation on sentencing,
you know, if they want to harden it up, We'll
harden it up. So I think, you know, we just
have to be clear Parliament, since the rules we need
to Yes, we respect the judiciary, we need to respect
the public service obviously need here as well, but we
have to have clarity at the core and at the
center about what we're here to do. And we're here
(04:49):
to improve the joint and get it sorted and turned around.
So the reply.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Marine and coastal areas are characterized by a blind adherence
to pre existing political commitments of the spense of fun
out blah blah blah. Are you telling them they're wasting
their time?
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Well, we'd be respectful. But the bottom line is we
are returning that legislation to what was intended in twenty eleven.
That was the legislation that recognized the Maori customary title
but also got the balance right with legitimate interests of
all News islands on the coastline. And so I appreciate
the way Taking Tribune has a view about that, but
we also have a view, which is that Parliament is sovereign,
(05:26):
and Parliament wrote or law than twenty eleven. The standard
and threshold had been loved and as a result, the
intention of what was happening wasn't consistent what we had
in the end, So that's why we're moving it back.
And I think, you know, that's just having the clarity
to do that, you know. And again on the gang legislation,
it's the same thing. It's like, either you are seriously
talking about tackling AFFIS or a quarter of your violent
(05:47):
crime problems with one quarter of one percent of the population,
or you're not and you keep talking about it, or
you do something about it. So I wanted us to
do different things to get different outcomes. And that's the
conversation i'm when I push my mins and the CEOs
of the agencies, is you know, when we have a
problem on mathematics, for example, it turns out you can
actually bring in the minister, bring in the CEO, bringing
(06:09):
the executive team of the Ministry of Education, and within
a week determine that you are going to introduce a
Singapore Australian style maths crect in at the beginning of
next year because you choose to do it. Otherwise you
sit there saying, we're just talking about four out of
five of our kids not being with any speak at
high school on mathematics. So I think my approach in
government was, I know we're doing it differently, and I
know that's a change from what the public service has seen.
(06:29):
It may even be a change from what the judiciary
or the way Toni Tribunal for that matter, has seen
as well. But we are clear about what we are
here to do, and I've been transmitting that from a
position we're transmitting it in government, which is rebuild the economy.
You're stall there a lot of bit of health and education.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
So then you put out the edict on Friday, the
cabinet edict around race. So you want to color blind
public service. And yet here's my scandal this morning. This
is a ut AUT get their money or the bulk
of their money from the state. Correct. Yes, right, So
when you want to travel as a staff member of
the AUT, you've got to fill out a form and
they've taken to various considerations, prestige of the conference you're
(07:05):
going to, how far it is, what the cost is,
risk of travel, blah blah blah. Then we come to
the final box, which is what they call equity consideration.
So if you're PACIFICA, you get an extra twenty percent multiplier.
If you marry, you get a thirty percent multiplier. How's
that color?
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Blow? Well, that doesn't sound consistent with what we're talking about,
which is that we deliver public services like education, like
healthcare or the passive need, not ethnicity. So that's the
first I've heard of it. I don't know why that
would be there.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Well, it's there because they're woke and they're wasting everybody's time.
This See, this is my overarching problem. It's you, to
my mind, you can't be clearer in what you're trying
to do. You don't have to agree with it, but
you couldn't be clearer in what you're trying to do.
These people are literally taking the pass Why Well, well
that's a question.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
You have to ask a U T. But I mean,
I think and it's something will follow up on. But
the point is, you know, as I said, all I
can do is make it crystal clear. We had a
long standing position and opposition. We've made sure that. You know,
when you've seen issues like Hawk's Day last week, which
you raised within hours you Shane ready had it resolved.
And this policy piece in this Cabinet circular, which was
just as formalizing all of that to say that we
(08:14):
expect all public services to it on the basis of need,
not ethnicity. And frankly, you know often people say to me,
what about mari inequality and equity and you go, yep,
mariy will get the support they need based on their
level of needs as well, and not get captured through
that lens. So yes, I appreciate there's been a different
management over the last six years and it's a change
and we're under new management. But I think the message
(08:36):
will start getting through.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Do you. And I know you don't comment on poles,
but the poll aren't yesterday, and I've gone through it
in great detail. I look at all the issues. For example,
you lead labor in every single issue now bar poverty,
and they only lead you on that by one point.
Could that indicate perhaps that you might be sending a
message that New Zealand appreciates. But all the wonks in
(08:59):
the public service and the judiciary in the White Tangye
Tribunal and all the bloody universities around the country don't get.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Yeah. Well, I think people appreciate we inherit a hell
of a mess. I think they see that we are
genuinely focused and we are working hard and we're trying
to fix the things that need to be fixed and
realize the opportunities that are sitting there. So I think, yeah,
I think they can look at our team and go, Okay,
the promises put good ministers in good portfolios. He's got
them really focused, they're accountable, they're driving really hard. And
(09:26):
I think people, you know, they want us to try right.
They want to government to show up and actually try
and actually do things differently. And I appreciate, you know,
I get pushed back on a lot of things that
people can disagree with me, but I do not care.
We are here to do the mission, which is to
actually turn the country around. And the only regret MIC is,
I say to my team from day one, is the
only regret we'll ever have when this comes to an
(09:46):
end one way or another, is that it didn't went
bold enough, we didn't go fast enough. So I know
we're putting pressure in the system. I know we're working
hard at it. But whether I look at law and order,
whether I look at what we're doing on the economy,
our long term growth prospects in the economy, what we
doing on education, what we're trying to do on healthcare
effected broken systems. Housing. Yeah, we've got a great story
on emergency housing. Right, we've moved over eleven hundred kids
(10:09):
out of motels into social transitional private rental markets.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
Rights though it's not true.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
I mean like, yeah, I have the bottom liize. Yeah,
I can tell you we're eighty percent of them I've gone.
And the good news as they're in a better place
than where they were. Now. That didn't That just required
us to organize differently, to do different management, and to
have clear expectations. Are clear targets one of the nine targets.
But the conversations about well between some Potarka and myself
and Chris specially as well. Guys, now we can keep
(10:37):
talking about this thing will just get worse and worse
like it has over the last decade, or otherwise we
do something different about it. Mart Mitchell's done a kick
ass job rightly and Auckland CBD, and he's gone about
that job in a different way. He's understood the problems
just complex and difficult. He's worked with the agencies and
when you see, you know, crime down thirty five percent,
in serious assult down, twenty two percent of retail crime
down fifty cent. Yeah, we've got a long way to go.
(11:00):
Get me wrong, and I'm not declaring victory by ey street.
I'll be constructively, just satisfide to the end, I suspect,
but the point is at least we're doing something different.
We're trying things in the public just want us to try,
and they want us to focus on them and tum livery.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
And set about it. See you next Tuesday. Appreciate it.
Chrystopher Luxon. For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen
live to news talks it'd be from six am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
The Prime Minister is with us for this Tuesday morning.
Very good morning to you.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Good morning, Mike. How are you today?
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Very well? Indeed, I've got a scandal for you. Are
you ready for a scandal?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hit me with it.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
I'll hit you with it in just a mind. And
I need to ask you first about about yesterday's you
have you're sentencing and all that sort of stuff. Lead's
story in the Herald this morning is about the pushback
on gang patches. Does it amaze you that we can't
stop whining about the problem and the damage gangs do,
and the moment a government does something about it, we
whine some more about their civil rights? What the hell's
going on?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, I don't care. It's actually you know, we make
no apologize for being tough on game members. The stats
that I always think about is game members are one
quarter of one percent of the population. As I tried
to say yesterday, you know that almost a fifth of
all serious violent crime homicides, I think they're twenty four percent,
almost a quarter of all Arms Act defenses I mean
illegal guns and kidnapping an induction. So, you know, if
(00:53):
you want to be serious about having a twenty thousand
people a fewer victims of violent crime, then you've got
to start there, and that's exactly what we're doing. So yep,
people are giving us some grief about it, saying that
we passed a bill through this Sleik Committee, which we did.
Police actually identifies an additional tool that would help them,
which was around these you know, wearing patches inside cars
and or houses, and frankly, it's consequences for a small
(01:16):
group of people, but if that also enables police to
have separate legal activity, that's a bonus. And frankly, we
want an asymmetric and we want to be harassing gangs
and that's what we're going to do.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Do you worry one of the suggestions is you will
encourage your words, not mine the cumulative concurren thing with judges.
Do you worry about the judiciary pushing.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Back, Well, again, that's why in Parliament we're going to
say that those rules, you know, that's what we're trying
to do with the same thing laws that we want
to pass as a result, and Parliament is sovereign in
New Zealand and that's why we're not leaving it to
judges just to set their own discounts for a number
of reasons for why. We've seen some pretty horrific cases
where offenders are god off for quite serious crimes with
(01:57):
what I think the public would say and victims would say,
it doesn't feel fear. And there's been some very hectic
discounts that doesn't reflect the harm cause. So you know,
that's why we're capping what judges can do at forty percent.
We're we're getting rid of repeated discounts for young people
and also remorse. You can show remorse once, but you
don't get to got multiple times. And frankly, if you're
going to be hurting people who are sole charge workers
(02:19):
or on a home own business, you know where they
live above the shot. All of that, that's your aggravating
factors that the judge has taken consideration. But yeah, we
want to encourage use of chum. They're not concurrence sentencing
to the people. Actually that it all stacks up. And
then the other bit might I think is important in
that sceencing all pieces that you get a lot of
people who only pled not guilty at the very end
(02:40):
of the court process and you've read twul size the victim.
But importantly you've way through this huge amount of court
time and slade the process up. So we're going to say, right,
the sliding scale for early guilty please, you know, so
you can get up to a twenty five percent discount
within that forty percent cap, but if you want to
do later on, it's going to be five percent. So
all that is sort of designed to say, Look, yeah,
(03:00):
we've got to go tough on the gangs because our
big driver of violent crime. You we've got to sort
out the serious own to send them approvement police officers.
We've got more creations officers and prison beds coming. And
we've also got changes to our center to the laws
as well.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Yeah, what I'm getting around. I'll give you another example
in the moment. I've been surprised and surprised at the
number of people in this country who seem to be
apologists for all that's wrong with it, and the wait
Tangi Tribunal is a very good example. And then I
come to the Public Service, the Ministry of Justice and
the League on the Treaty Principals Bill. You haven't got
to the bottom of it apparently as to who did it?
(03:34):
How do you function as a government if you're getting
pushed back from the judiciary, push back from the Waitangi Tribunal,
and a public service that isn't adhering to what you're
wanting to do.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, you have to be. You have a responsibility in
government and I don't think you know, sometimes cabinets and
ministers have been chrystal clear at the center about what
they are here to do and what they are three
things in their portfolios are affixiated and focused on to deliver.
And as a result, I think the public services often
had sort of not enough clarity. So that happened with
the last lot a lot, and you know, then there
(04:05):
is lessons of the courts. So that's why we've seen
us move on things like make legislation, for example on
the on customary rights, because we actually want that to
be reflective of what Parliament intended that legislation to be
back in three thousand. Len W's got the balance right. Likewise,
you're seeing us here with discounting. We're not leaving it
to judge just to just you know, people sixty sixty
five percent discounts. And in fact, if people want to
(04:27):
contribute on the selectmmittee process for this legislation on sentencing,
you know, if they want to harden it up, We'll
harden it up. So I think, you know, we just
have to be clear Parliament, since the rules we need
to Yes, we respect the judiciary, we need to respect
the public service obviously need here as well, but we
have to have clarity at the core and at the
center about what we're here to do. And we're here
(04:49):
to improve the joint and get it sorted and turned around.
So the reply.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Marine and coastal areas are characterized by a blind adherence
to pre existing political commitments of the spense of fun
out blah blah blah. Are you telling them they're wasting
their time?
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Well, we'd be respectful. But the bottom line is we
are returning that legislation to what was intended in twenty eleven.
That was the legislation that recognized the Maori customary title
but also got the balance right with legitimate interests of
all News islands on the coastline. And so I appreciate
the way Taking Tribune has a view about that, but
we also have a view, which is that Parliament is sovereign,
(05:26):
and Parliament wrote or law than twenty eleven. The standard
and threshold had been loved and as a result, the
intention of what was happening wasn't consistent what we had
in the end, So that's why we're moving it back.
And I think, you know, that's just having the clarity
to do that, you know. And again on the gang legislation,
it's the same thing. It's like, either you are seriously
talking about tackling AFFIS or a quarter of your violent
(05:47):
crime problems with one quarter of one percent of the population,
or you're not and you keep talking about it, or
you do something about it. So I wanted us to
do different things to get different outcomes. And that's the
conversation i'm when I push my mins and the CEOs
of the agencies, is you know, when we have a
problem on mathematics, for example, it turns out you can
actually bring in the minister, bring in the CEO, bringing
(06:09):
the executive team of the Ministry of Education, and within
a week determine that you are going to introduce a
Singapore Australian style maths crect in at the beginning of
next year because you choose to do it. Otherwise you
sit there saying, we're just talking about four out of
five of our kids not being with any speak at
high school on mathematics. So I think my approach in
government was, I know we're doing it differently, and I
know that's a change from what the public service has seen.
(06:29):
It may even be a change from what the judiciary
or the way Toni Tribunal for that matter, has seen
as well. But we are clear about what we are
here to do, and I've been transmitting that from a
position we're transmitting it in government, which is rebuild the economy.
You're stall there a lot of bit of health and education.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
So then you put out the edict on Friday, the
cabinet edict around race. So you want to color blind
public service. And yet here's my scandal this morning. This
is a ut AUT get their money or the bulk
of their money from the state. Correct. Yes, right, So
when you want to travel as a staff member of
the AUT, you've got to fill out a form and
they've taken to various considerations, prestige of the conference you're
(07:05):
going to, how far it is, what the cost is,
risk of travel, blah blah blah. Then we come to
the final box, which is what they call equity consideration.
So if you're PACIFICA, you get an extra twenty percent multiplier.
If you marry, you get a thirty percent multiplier. How's
that color?
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Blow? Well, that doesn't sound consistent with what we're talking about,
which is that we deliver public services like education, like
healthcare or the passive need, not ethnicity. So that's the
first I've heard of it. I don't know why that
would be there.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Well, it's there because they're woke and they're wasting everybody's time.
This See, this is my overarching problem. It's you, to
my mind, you can't be clearer in what you're trying
to do. You don't have to agree with it, but
you couldn't be clearer in what you're trying to do.
These people are literally taking the pass Why Well, well
that's a question.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
You have to ask a U T. But I mean,
I think and it's something will follow up on. But
the point is, you know, as I said, all I
can do is make it crystal clear. We had a
long standing position and opposition. We've made sure that. You know,
when you've seen issues like Hawk's Day last week, which
you raised within hours you Shane ready had it resolved.
And this policy piece in this Cabinet circular, which was
just as formalizing all of that to say that we
(08:14):
expect all public services to it on the basis of need,
not ethnicity. And frankly, you know often people say to me,
what about mari inequality and equity and you go, yep,
mariy will get the support they need based on their
level of needs as well, and not get captured through
that lens. So yes, I appreciate there's been a different
management over the last six years and it's a change
and we're under new management. But I think the message
(08:36):
will start getting through.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Do you. And I know you don't comment on poles,
but the poll aren't yesterday, and I've gone through it
in great detail. I look at all the issues. For example,
you lead labor in every single issue now bar poverty,
and they only lead you on that by one point.
Could that indicate perhaps that you might be sending a
message that New Zealand appreciates. But all the wonks in
(08:59):
the public service and the judiciary in the White Tangye
Tribunal and all the bloody universities around the country don't get.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Yeah. Well, I think people appreciate we inherit a hell
of a mess. I think they see that we are
genuinely focused and we are working hard and we're trying
to fix the things that need to be fixed and
realize the opportunities that are sitting there. So I think, yeah,
I think they can look at our team and go, Okay,
the promises put good ministers in good portfolios. He's got
them really focused, they're accountable, they're driving really hard. And
(09:26):
I think people, you know, they want us to try right.
They want to government to show up and actually try
and actually do things differently. And I appreciate, you know,
I get pushed back on a lot of things that
people can disagree with me, but I do not care.
We are here to do the mission, which is to
actually turn the country around. And the only regret MIC is,
I say to my team from day one, is the
only regret we'll ever have when this comes to an
(09:46):
end one way or another, is that it didn't went
bold enough, we didn't go fast enough. So I know
we're putting pressure in the system. I know we're working
hard at it. But whether I look at law and order,
whether I look at what we're doing on the economy,
our long term growth prospects in the economy, what we
doing on education, what we're trying to do on healthcare
effected broken systems. Housing. Yeah, we've got a great story
on emergency housing. Right, we've moved over eleven hundred kids
(10:09):
out of motels into social transitional private rental markets.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
Rights though it's not true.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
I mean like, yeah, I have the bottom liize. Yeah,
I can tell you we're eighty percent of them I've gone.
And the good news as they're in a better place
than where they were. Now. That didn't That just required
us to organize differently, to do different management, and to
have clear expectations. Are clear targets one of the nine targets.
But the conversations about well between some Potarka and myself
and Chris specially as well. Guys, now we can keep
(10:37):
talking about this thing will just get worse and worse
like it has over the last decade, or otherwise we
do something different about it. Mart Mitchell's done a kick
ass job rightly and Auckland CBD, and he's gone about
that job in a different way. He's understood the problems
just complex and difficult. He's worked with the agencies and
when you see, you know, crime down thirty five percent,
in serious assult down, twenty two percent of retail crime
down fifty cent. Yeah, we've got a long way to go.
(11:00):
Get me wrong, and I'm not declaring victory by ey street.
I'll be constructively, just satisfide to the end, I suspect,
but the point is at least we're doing something different.
We're trying things in the public just want us to try,
and they want us to focus on them and tum livery.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
And set about it. See you next Tuesday. Appreciate it.
Chrystopher Luxon. For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen
live to news talks it'd be from six 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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.