October 21, 2024 • 11 mins
The Prime Minister says he can't fathom why Minister Andrew Bayly would make offensive comments to a worker during a visit.
A worker claims the minister told him to “go home... take some wine, and F... off”, and made an L sign with his finger on his forehead.
Bayly's apologised.
Christopher Luxon told Mike Hosking Bayly didn't know the person, and he isn't aware of any connection between Bayly and the company.
He says Bayly genuinely feels like he was trying to engage in light-hearted banter but got it so wrong.
Luxon says it's not the language or behaviour he expects of his ministers – they hold the position 24/7.
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):
Being a Tuesday at the Prime Minister's with us Chrystopher
luxon Good Morning, How good is Liam Lawson? He was
absolutely fantastic And you won't have spent some time watching
it because you've got a country to run and I
just run a breakfast show, so I had more time.
But what he did was just just exceptional. And do
you get frustrated because as I watched yet again slavishly
(00:20):
to your post cabinet press conference, you opened with that
very thought that you know, New Zealand had a fantastic
sporting weekend. What's the point of doing that given you
know that none of those people sitting in front of
you deal with any of that and will never ask
you a question about it ever.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Well, like I'm also talking through the media to people
across his own so I always think it's a good
chance to acknowledge, you know, what was a great weekend.
And you know that's how I opened this one yesterday.
And we had some good news yesterday around the roads
of national significance. We've actually kicked off one, which is
the Hawks Bay Expressway.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
They didn't ask you about those either, no, but we'll up.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
I did that for about twelve to fifteen months sooner.
And that's pretty good progress, I reckon in the first
year to get going with that. So there's a lot
more to do. Obviously there's a big program will work
on roads, but that was the focus. But then obviously
it goes into general topics of the day.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Right, what did they ask you about?
Speaker 2 (01:12):
There was conversations around Andrew Bailey.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
So the conversation is going to be around Andrew Bailey
just just for my edification, correct me if I'm wrong.
But the coverage of the story has been convoluted to
the extent that nobody actually knows what happened. Do you
know specifically what happened?
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yes, you know. What happened was he visited a business,
he engaged with staff there. He thought he was making
some lighthearted comments and bentter and he clearly got it
very very wrong and unintentionally made someone feel pretty hurt
and insulted. And so as a consequence, you know, he's
a knowledge that he got that wrong. He feels quite
mortified about that, quite rightly. So he's apologized most importantly
(01:56):
to the complainant, but also to me and then assured
me that that's the behavior that happened. Again, because frankly,
that fell short of the centers I expect from my minister's.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Did he know the person?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
No, not that I'm aware of. No, he was just
visiting a business.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Which to my I assumed he knew somebody, because I
cannot fathom in my mind if I'd known. Oh good,
up there, Chris, how are you? Yeah? I haven't seen
you for five years? What are you still doing here? Mate?
Oh god, what a loser? Are you still working here?
Et cetera. I get that, not just make it right,
but I get it. How do you explain a minister
of the crown going up to a person that he's
(02:31):
literally never met in his life in going why don't
you get some wine and f off you lose? How
does that evolt?
Speaker 2 (02:40):
I mean, he got it very very wrong. I mean
there's you know, you can sort of dispute stories on
both sides as to what exactly was said or wasn't said,
but the bottom line is from his perspective, he owns
it completely and that's why you saw him front it
very strongly on all Well. I mean again, no I can't.
I mean that's why I said to him. It's pretty
(03:00):
disappointing because it's very disappointing because they aren't the standards
or the language or the behavior that I would expect
to my minister as you hold the position twenty four
to seven, as I've said to the cabinet from day one,
and the reality is, you know, he caused hurt an
insult to somebody. He's acknowledged that. You know, he has apologized,
it's genuine. He's reached out I think twice, he's offered
(03:21):
to meet with the individual if that helps. It's ultimately
up to them as to whether they do or don't
want to do that. And most importantly, to assure me
it won't happen again.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Is there something underhand in the bloke or the company
alerting all of the political parties.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Well, look, I mean the bottom line is, you know,
he's got to own it in front it because regardless
of what people think about the actual circumstances, the reality
is he caused hurt an insult, and he acknowledges that.
As soon as it was raised with him, he wrote
immediately to apologize an individual. He's apologized again. He's offered
to reach out, talk on phone, go meet in person,
(03:55):
do whatever's needed. And he genuinely. You know, it feels
like he was he was trying to engage in some
light handed, lighthearted banter, which.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
I just don't see that if he had known him,
he got us so so wrong. If he had known him,
if he had met him, if he had some connection
with the company, I'll take there's no connection with the
company either, not that I'm aware of it. So it's
just just a random minister turns up and tell somebody
to off go home, grab some wine, and what I'll lose.
I just it's totally totally got it wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Yep, totally got it wrong. And you really understands that,
which is important for me, but again cannot happen again.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Okay, have you seen the advice that Sam has seen
on Wellington.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
I haven't seen the advice, but we're in conversation about that.
He will, he will obviously work his way through that
and come to a decision shortly.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Has he told you what the advice is? Roughly?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well, I mean again, it's sort of obvious to us
that there's some dysfunction going on on the council. There's
obviously been a big gap with respect to the long
term plan, and frankly, when I've looked at the balance
sheets and the financials. You know that, you know, there's
there's there's a balance sheet there that should be managed
in a much better way. So those have been at
concerns coming through this process. He's taken advice on it.
(05:07):
He's he's considering that right now. It's important he gets
it right. But he'll have more right, I'm sure, surely. Well,
I mean he's got to make sure that he's actually
you know that there's a basis if he's going to
make an intervention that that's you know.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Well, the basis is what you've so clearly and publicly
stated over the last couple of weeks, you willis something
wrong with the council.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Yeah, well that's why that's not exactly why we are
where we are today, because he's asked for further advice
on that what sort of what's As a minister of
local government, he has a series of powers and he
just wants to make sure that he understands.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Those powers well before he pulls the trigger.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Yeah, but before he makes a decision on one way or.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
The other, Well he pulls the trigger and makes the decision,
or has he already made his decision.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Well, he'll heaven what to say about that shortly.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
I just can't work out why it's so complicated. A
government can't go round threatening councils without actually following through
with the threat.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Well, I think we've raised our concerns pretty consistently and clearly,
not that long ago. He's got to make sure he
follows proper process so that he does that well and right.
And he's got to take that advice and consider a
few things.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
And so.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
I've rest assured he'll be moving quickly through it and
he'll have something to say shortly. But for now he's
still considering that advice.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Who got did you go and told her to fall
on a sword?
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Sorry, say that again?
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Who got to the Solicitor General and told her to
fall on his sword? Well?
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Look, I mean we welcome her independent decision to withdraw
and further review those prosecution guidelines.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
I mean, have you got that written down in front
of you. That's what I've said. Who got to us?
You shouldn't wake up one morning and change your mind?
Who got to it?
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Well, I mean that the Journey General made it very
clear that we expect all New Zealanders to be treated
equally under the law. The law should be colorblind, and
she articulated that to this list of general and you
know that's a core principle of law in New Zealand.
So it's good to see that she's come to a decision,
which is she's withdrawing that guidelines and she'll have another
go at it.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
So the AG you can get to the SG. Is
the SG actually independent.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Well, I mean the AG this she is appointed by
the AG. And it's actually important that you know, she
made it very clear to her that, you know, we
expect all these Islanders to be treated equally under the law.
That's that's exactly how it is. You should be held
to account for your actions, regardless of what your background is.
And so it's a core principle of the law. It's
a core principle of our government obviously, and I suspect
(07:28):
all governments. And so she got this one wrong, and
quite rightly, I think has made the right decision to
withdraw it and to resubmit it. Ultimately.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
We had Chris Finlayson on earlier on in the program.
He said you should sack the people at her motel.
This group doing nothing earning half a million dollars are
you going to sack them.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Well, I know Tama Potaka had some remarks about that
over the last twenty four hours and he's looking into
that very carefully because clearly it's taken.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
He's getting the same advice getting before he says anything.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Now, we're just important that we make sure that we
take the advice and then ministers will make decisions. And
you know the ministers have strong views on things wheres
they should do, they can take advice. There's a range
of advice and we don't always take it, and it's
just important that we get all the process clean and
sorted and quickly delivered in the background. But you know,
as you've heard Thomas say, he's got concerns given the length,
(08:16):
the time it has, the amount of money that's been
spent in the absence of a result.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Can I take from your comments yesterday is there a
game being played between you and Grant Dalton that he
can ring you, but you ring him and if it's
not you, it's Chris Buship, but Chris Buship can't ring him.
And who's ringing Hord? Does anybody ring an anybody?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Well, we're very happy just to engage in a conversation
it's not about who sends what and who does what
to who. I guess the thing is ultimately just recognizing,
look is the team New Zealand's decision. We are very
open to a conversation and having that conversation. I do
want to stay upfront, as you well understand it. It's
difficult economic times, you know. I think last time, Mike,
(08:52):
it was one hundred million dollars the government almost put
forward as an offer. We've got a lot of priorities,
you know when you're looking at hospital, schools, roads other
things that we're in hell of a mess. We've got
to sort some things out. So but what I do
want to be is really clear in that conversation, which
is let's have the conversation, but let's get clarity up front.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
And then let's not course one hundred million look.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
At SHA experiences. Oh look, I think I think the
New Zealand public would find that quite challenging, to be honest,
you know, I think and I don't know what that
cap would be, and I really want to understand what
they would be thinking and happy to engage that conversation.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
So so if it's more than one hundred million, forget it.
If it's less than one hundred million, we could do
some business pop mo. You could see last you could
see last time.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
As I owner said, it got to ninety nine million
dollars from memory and it was all you know, that
was the government obviously massively stretched at that point in time.
What I just say to you are worse. Nations are
even worse, and it's incredibly challenging. And the reality is,
I think the New Zealand public, if you say to them,
do you want a hundred million dollars spent doing this
or do you want a hundred million dollars spent doing
something that improves education or healthcare law in order, that's
(09:52):
probably where they'd be at the moment, quite rightly. So yeah,
I just in fairness, but I also don't want to know.
I've watched and you would have watched it. Over the years,
there's just been these ongoing negotiation experiences that I think
I don't want to repeat. Let's just get clarity upfront,
so everyone's got clarity and can move on one way
or the other.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Did those punks on the roof worry, get some chicken
and some car.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
No, we've got six still up there. I think thirteen
went up there late last night. Six are up there
as I came to onto your call, and you know,
we've got police and OT doing a good job actually
talking them down. But no, they're not coming down for KFC,
but they you know, these are some of our most
serious and high core young offenders. You know, what I
just say is what's interesting, Mike is there was fifteen
(10:37):
rooftop instances last year in twenty twenty three. This is
the first we've had this year. We've got more work
to do on hardening the infrastructure post the Mike Bush report,
but the Minister and the team are working through that.
So yeah, the key thing is let's get these kids
down safely and then move forward.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Appreciate your time, Primate as Chryso blaccent. For more from
the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks they'd
be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Being a Tuesday at the Prime Minister's with us Chrystopher
luxon Good Morning, How good is Liam Lawson? He was
absolutely fantastic And you won't have spent some time watching
it because you've got a country to run and I
just run a breakfast show, so I had more time.
But what he did was just just exceptional. And do
you get frustrated because as I watched yet again slavishly
(00:20):
to your post cabinet press conference, you opened with that
very thought that you know, New Zealand had a fantastic
sporting weekend. What's the point of doing that given you
know that none of those people sitting in front of
you deal with any of that and will never ask
you a question about it ever.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Well, like I'm also talking through the media to people
across his own so I always think it's a good
chance to acknowledge, you know, what was a great weekend.
And you know that's how I opened this one yesterday.
And we had some good news yesterday around the roads
of national significance. We've actually kicked off one, which is
the Hawks Bay Expressway.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
They didn't ask you about those either, no, but we'll up.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
I did that for about twelve to fifteen months sooner.
And that's pretty good progress, I reckon in the first
year to get going with that. So there's a lot
more to do. Obviously there's a big program will work
on roads, but that was the focus. But then obviously
it goes into general topics of the day.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Right, what did they ask you about?
Speaker 2 (01:12):
There was conversations around Andrew Bailey.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
So the conversation is going to be around Andrew Bailey
just just for my edification, correct me if I'm wrong.
But the coverage of the story has been convoluted to
the extent that nobody actually knows what happened. Do you
know specifically what happened?
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yes, you know. What happened was he visited a business,
he engaged with staff there. He thought he was making
some lighthearted comments and bentter and he clearly got it
very very wrong and unintentionally made someone feel pretty hurt
and insulted. And so as a consequence, you know, he's
a knowledge that he got that wrong. He feels quite
mortified about that, quite rightly. So he's apologized most importantly
(01:56):
to the complainant, but also to me and then assured
me that that's the behavior that happened. Again, because frankly,
that fell short of the centers I expect from my minister's.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Did he know the person?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
No, not that I'm aware of. No, he was just
visiting a business.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Which to my I assumed he knew somebody, because I
cannot fathom in my mind if I'd known. Oh good,
up there, Chris, how are you? Yeah? I haven't seen
you for five years? What are you still doing here? Mate?
Oh god, what a loser? Are you still working here?
Et cetera. I get that, not just make it right,
but I get it. How do you explain a minister
of the crown going up to a person that he's
(02:31):
literally never met in his life in going why don't
you get some wine and f off you lose? How
does that evolt?
Speaker 2 (02:40):
I mean, he got it very very wrong. I mean
there's you know, you can sort of dispute stories on
both sides as to what exactly was said or wasn't said,
but the bottom line is from his perspective, he owns
it completely and that's why you saw him front it
very strongly on all Well. I mean again, no I can't.
I mean that's why I said to him. It's pretty
(03:00):
disappointing because it's very disappointing because they aren't the standards
or the language or the behavior that I would expect
to my minister as you hold the position twenty four
to seven, as I've said to the cabinet from day one,
and the reality is, you know, he caused hurt an
insult to somebody. He's acknowledged that. You know, he has apologized,
it's genuine. He's reached out I think twice, he's offered
(03:21):
to meet with the individual if that helps. It's ultimately
up to them as to whether they do or don't
want to do that. And most importantly, to assure me
it won't happen again.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Is there something underhand in the bloke or the company
alerting all of the political parties.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Well, look, I mean the bottom line is, you know,
he's got to own it in front it because regardless
of what people think about the actual circumstances, the reality
is he caused hurt an insult, and he acknowledges that.
As soon as it was raised with him, he wrote
immediately to apologize an individual. He's apologized again. He's offered
to reach out, talk on phone, go meet in person,
(03:55):
do whatever's needed. And he genuinely. You know, it feels
like he was he was trying to engage in some
light handed, lighthearted banter, which.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
I just don't see that if he had known him,
he got us so so wrong. If he had known him,
if he had met him, if he had some connection
with the company, I'll take there's no connection with the
company either, not that I'm aware of it. So it's
just just a random minister turns up and tell somebody
to off go home, grab some wine, and what I'll lose.
I just it's totally totally got it wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Yep, totally got it wrong. And you really understands that,
which is important for me, but again cannot happen again.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Okay, have you seen the advice that Sam has seen
on Wellington.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
I haven't seen the advice, but we're in conversation about that.
He will, he will obviously work his way through that
and come to a decision shortly.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Has he told you what the advice is? Roughly?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well, I mean again, it's sort of obvious to us
that there's some dysfunction going on on the council. There's
obviously been a big gap with respect to the long
term plan, and frankly, when I've looked at the balance
sheets and the financials. You know that, you know, there's
there's there's a balance sheet there that should be managed
in a much better way. So those have been at
concerns coming through this process. He's taken advice on it.
(05:07):
He's he's considering that right now. It's important he gets
it right. But he'll have more right, I'm sure, surely. Well,
I mean he's got to make sure that he's actually
you know that there's a basis if he's going to
make an intervention that that's you know.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Well, the basis is what you've so clearly and publicly
stated over the last couple of weeks, you willis something
wrong with the council.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Yeah, well that's why that's not exactly why we are
where we are today, because he's asked for further advice
on that what sort of what's As a minister of
local government, he has a series of powers and he
just wants to make sure that he understands.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Those powers well before he pulls the trigger.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Yeah, but before he makes a decision on one way or.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
The other, Well he pulls the trigger and makes the decision,
or has he already made his decision.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Well, he'll heaven what to say about that shortly.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
I just can't work out why it's so complicated. A
government can't go round threatening councils without actually following through
with the threat.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Well, I think we've raised our concerns pretty consistently and clearly,
not that long ago. He's got to make sure he
follows proper process so that he does that well and right.
And he's got to take that advice and consider a
few things.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
And so.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
I've rest assured he'll be moving quickly through it and
he'll have something to say shortly. But for now he's
still considering that advice.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Who got did you go and told her to fall
on a sword?
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Sorry, say that again?
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Who got to the Solicitor General and told her to
fall on his sword? Well?
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Look, I mean we welcome her independent decision to withdraw
and further review those prosecution guidelines.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
I mean, have you got that written down in front
of you. That's what I've said. Who got to us?
You shouldn't wake up one morning and change your mind?
Who got to it?
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Well, I mean that the Journey General made it very
clear that we expect all New Zealanders to be treated
equally under the law. The law should be colorblind, and
she articulated that to this list of general and you
know that's a core principle of law in New Zealand.
So it's good to see that she's come to a decision,
which is she's withdrawing that guidelines and she'll have another
go at it.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
So the AG you can get to the SG. Is
the SG actually independent.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Well, I mean the AG this she is appointed by
the AG. And it's actually important that you know, she
made it very clear to her that, you know, we
expect all these Islanders to be treated equally under the law.
That's that's exactly how it is. You should be held
to account for your actions, regardless of what your background is.
And so it's a core principle of the law. It's
a core principle of our government obviously, and I suspect
(07:28):
all governments. And so she got this one wrong, and
quite rightly, I think has made the right decision to
withdraw it and to resubmit it. Ultimately.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
We had Chris Finlayson on earlier on in the program.
He said you should sack the people at her motel.
This group doing nothing earning half a million dollars are
you going to sack them.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Well, I know Tama Potaka had some remarks about that
over the last twenty four hours and he's looking into
that very carefully because clearly it's taken.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
He's getting the same advice getting before he says anything.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Now, we're just important that we make sure that we
take the advice and then ministers will make decisions. And
you know the ministers have strong views on things wheres
they should do, they can take advice. There's a range
of advice and we don't always take it, and it's
just important that we get all the process clean and
sorted and quickly delivered in the background. But you know,
as you've heard Thomas say, he's got concerns given the length,
(08:16):
the time it has, the amount of money that's been
spent in the absence of a result.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Can I take from your comments yesterday is there a
game being played between you and Grant Dalton that he
can ring you, but you ring him and if it's
not you, it's Chris Buship, but Chris Buship can't ring him.
And who's ringing Hord? Does anybody ring an anybody?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Well, we're very happy just to engage in a conversation
it's not about who sends what and who does what
to who. I guess the thing is ultimately just recognizing,
look is the team New Zealand's decision. We are very
open to a conversation and having that conversation. I do
want to stay upfront, as you well understand it. It's
difficult economic times, you know. I think last time, Mike,
(08:52):
it was one hundred million dollars the government almost put
forward as an offer. We've got a lot of priorities,
you know when you're looking at hospital, schools, roads other
things that we're in hell of a mess. We've got
to sort some things out. So but what I do
want to be is really clear in that conversation, which
is let's have the conversation, but let's get clarity up front.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
And then let's not course one hundred million look.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
At SHA experiences. Oh look, I think I think the
New Zealand public would find that quite challenging, to be honest,
you know, I think and I don't know what that
cap would be, and I really want to understand what
they would be thinking and happy to engage that conversation.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
So so if it's more than one hundred million, forget it.
If it's less than one hundred million, we could do
some business pop mo. You could see last you could
see last time.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
As I owner said, it got to ninety nine million
dollars from memory and it was all you know, that
was the government obviously massively stretched at that point in time.
What I just say to you are worse. Nations are
even worse, and it's incredibly challenging. And the reality is,
I think the New Zealand public, if you say to them,
do you want a hundred million dollars spent doing this
or do you want a hundred million dollars spent doing
something that improves education or healthcare law in order, that's
(09:52):
probably where they'd be at the moment, quite rightly. So yeah,
I just in fairness, but I also don't want to know.
I've watched and you would have watched it. Over the years,
there's just been these ongoing negotiation experiences that I think
I don't want to repeat. Let's just get clarity upfront,
so everyone's got clarity and can move on one way
or the other.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Did those punks on the roof worry, get some chicken
and some car.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
No, we've got six still up there. I think thirteen
went up there late last night. Six are up there
as I came to onto your call, and you know,
we've got police and OT doing a good job actually
talking them down. But no, they're not coming down for KFC,
but they you know, these are some of our most
serious and high core young offenders. You know, what I
just say is what's interesting, Mike is there was fifteen
(10:37):
rooftop instances last year in twenty twenty three. This is
the first we've had this year. We've got more work
to do on hardening the infrastructure post the Mike Bush report,
but the Minister and the team are working through that.
So yeah, the key thing is let's get these kids
down safely and then move forward.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Appreciate your time, Primate as Chryso blaccent. For more from
the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks they'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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.