September 25, 2025 • 27 mins
On Friday Faceoff this week Nick spoke to Franks Ogilvie director Stephen Franks and former cabinet minister Peter Dunne.
They discussed the council desk saga, privacy within the council, gave their thoughts on Andrew Little and the Wellington mayoral race and their live reaction to the Loafers Lodge fire guilty verdict.
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 (00:07):
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from news Talk said b.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Joining us for Friday face off is Peter Dune.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Good morning, Peter, good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I don't need to go and the hope haio for
mercabin and minister. Can you come a little bit close
to the morning please, thank you.
Speaker 4 (00:24):
I told to do that.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
And Frank's Ogilvy law director Stephen Franks. We don't need
to go into all the fact that you've been a
parliamentary and your farmer shooter lawyer. How are you? Good morning?
Can you come a little bit closer to your microphone too, please?
Hopefully we'll have as much action, which we didn't one
other time that you were on the show. We were
(00:47):
just having a little bit of a chat or fear
about that. But anyway, moving straight along, a Wellington man
bought an old desk from the op shop at the tip.
It turns out, and he must have known that that
it was an old mayor's desk from the old City
Council office at the town Hall. It contained highly confidential
documents and lading sexual harassment abusive workplace claims. Now I
(01:11):
saw some of those myself with my own very eyes
this morning, Stephen. What do you make of this? I mean,
you would have seen the story, What do you make
of it?
Speaker 4 (01:19):
I usually pooh pooh stories about breaches of privacy just
because privacies are relatively recent law, and everyone goes, oh,
how terrible, when in fact most of the people who
know the people involved, who can actually affect their lives
will probably already know all the stuff, and it's it's
(01:39):
you know, it's bad practice when privacy is breached. But
I always think that it's there's an awful lot of
pearl clutching about the actual effects are usually small. In
this case, looks like that assembled all the sensitive stuff,
locked it away safely.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
And then in an old desk. I mean, it tells
you how safely it is.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Well, it was probably safe because no one no one
had realized it was there, presumably, but I shouldn't be
there's probably someone who could be very hurt. But as
the chairman of the Free Speech Union, I'm pretty keen
on a lot more disclosure and a lot less secrecy.
I think there's far too much suppression of embarrassing information now,
(02:23):
and people ought to know quite a lot of the
things that are kept secret because they should be allowed
to form their own views on the merits of these people.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
You've got my vote on that. I'm against anything that's
withheld because of it. If you've done it and it's public,
and it's public, I mean we should be all taking
it on the chin and getting on with it, should we?
I mean, Peter Dunt, what did you make when you make?
Speaker 4 (02:45):
First?
Speaker 3 (02:45):
When I heard the story, I thought, nothing ever surprises
me about the well in Kent City Council. The fact
that they can't even dispose of desks properly, you know,
why take them to the dump? Why not have auctioned
them off and raised but more capital in the first place.
But the second thing is I always thought when you
left a job, you cleared your desk out. And I'm
surprised that these people who are getting upset, and my
(03:05):
dear friend fran As leading the charge, I thought she'd
have cleared her disk out of anything was hers because
I thought, well, there's I think there's all. I think
there's fran I think there's Mark Bumpsky, I think Kerry Prendergast.
But you take all your stuff with you, don't you?
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Well? Can I just tell you that where I haven't
actually seen the bag. I've seen some of the information,
but I believe that the bags like a big rubbish
bag full of stuff, and they're all pieces of information
that were vital for someone's case that they were having.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
But it's still you know, it shouldn't have been left there.
But as I say, I think the people who who
occupied those desks should have taken their stuff with them
when they left.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
The thing that gets to me out of the Stephen
is the fact that the guy did the right thing
the buyer.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
And they ignored him, laughed at they thought he was
a bit of a duckcase, and and said, well, when
you get some proof he heard the documents. It does
speak to you, said Peter, that there's such a slack
culture in the place. That could be the response.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Yes, I mean, but of course it's really.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Hard to change things now. You can't sack people until
you've proven they've got their hands. In the film, someone's
appointed to be a change manager. But if you can't
change the people, which we've had again since nineteen eighty
when we changed employment law, and we've not been able
to really sack people easily, and so it's really hard
to change culture in a place.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Obviously there's a problem with the culture Peter Dunn. When
someone rings up and says, look, I've got this information,
and the very very first piece of paper that I
saw was a very well known Wellingtonian doing something that
he probably should not, may have may or may not
have done it. Apparently he didn't do. But whatever I
saw it there right in front of me. Surely if
(04:56):
someone from the council should have said stay right there,
will get a van round and we'll pick it all up.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
And there's a number of levels to this. If you're
going to dispose of the furniture, surely someone goes through
the drawers beforehand to check that there's nothing there that
clearly didn't happen. I do remember once hearing a story
in Britain where they found a copy of the Magna
Carta in a draw somewhere, the original, one of four originals.
But that's a slightly different story. But that's the first point.
(05:22):
The second point is if someone does ring up and say, hell,
look I've found all the sensitive material, you don't just
dismiss it out of hand.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Right More to come. I believe there's more to come.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
If you guys have got it obviously this more all
power of your arm. If it's stuff that we would
know about.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Yeah, well, I'm not sure. I'm not privy to that.
But I did see one one particular paper that a
colleague and I just put in front of me, and
it was like, I thought, O, yell, I'm glad it's
not my name on the top of that. Should we
talk about the mayoral race while we've been talking about
I mean, I've been pretty out there saying that it's
(06:02):
bloody boring. Stephen Franks, what are your thoughts.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
You're talking about one, I mean, I understand you in
some of the other cities in the area.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Very interesting.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
Yeah, it's only it's only dreary because everyone is expecting
Andrew to win, and to win handily. So you've taken
the drama out of elections. I as a as a
victim of the ros Valley voters, I think that they
(06:30):
inflict dreary mayors and have been for some time on
Wellington and Andrew's been having to pander to them. I mean,
I'm assuming he can't really be enthusiastic about some of
the things he's been saying, like everyone's going to get
the living wage, whether they whether that's market or not,
and the other concessions. So it's sort of I say,
(06:56):
woring got I actually actively avoid reading about it. It
just depresses me. It doesn't look as if we're going
to get a dramatically different council.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Look, I agree, I think it's a tedious racial raising.
All sorts of hands signals you're going, I'm.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
I'm just going to have a quick break because that
verdicts out and we'll come back.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
And this is news Talks and the breaking news.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
In breaking news, the man who looked at deadly Loafers
Lodge fire that killed five people has been found guilty
after seventeen hours of deliberations. Gasps and quiet explanasion of
yelling out of yes came from the public gallery as
the jury's verdicts were read out in court this morning.
It also now can be revealed that the defendant, who
(07:43):
has interim name suppression, has previous convictions for attempted murder
more than fifteen years ago. So there it is. It's
out guilty Loafus Lodge. We still haven't got his name,
that's obviously still under suppression, Stephen.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Those previous convictions will reassure the jury they did the
right thing. It's a contentious issue around the world as
to whether the current strict, really strict rules against previous
convictions should be should be revealed. I think that the
law has just simply failed to keep up with googling.
(08:22):
In most cases now, despite judges orders, juries commonly go
away and google and get their own information, and the
court just pretends it's not happening.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
I mean that almost amazes me in a modern world
that that can happen, that they can they can. I mean,
if you're on the jury, of course you're going to ask.
I mean if I if I interview someone for a job,
the first thing I do is google them.
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Yeah, exactly, And that there's they've all been clapping their
hands over their ears and eyes and saying, no, we'll
all pretend that the world is as it was. I mean,
what they should be doing is having the the jury asked,
what is the information that you have? What do you
want us to test? We hear the lawyers want to
want to know what's in your mind, and we want
(09:08):
to bring evidence that will address the theories that you
might have formed, because that's how juries work now. But
when you talk to jurors, that's how they work.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Peter, done your initial response to this, it means been
going on for weeks costs and.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to qualify my
remarks by saying that right at the outset, but as
a lay person, that struck me from the beginning that
this was likely to head towards an insanity verdict. But
except that in the last few days of evidence, I
started to change my mind. I thought, when they were
talking about the defendant knowing right from wrong and all
(09:42):
of those sorts of things, I started to think, well,
maybe this is not the easy option that first appeared.
And so I'm not altogether surprised at the guilty verdict.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Yes, I mean, people forget that whether whether you're insane
or not is not a decision by psychologists or the experts.
They provide evidence, but it's actually a decision for the jury.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
It's illegal to well, how can they decide?
Speaker 4 (10:05):
Well, what they're saying is the insanity that's required, as
Peter have just said, is whether they knew the difference
between right and wrong, and so it is something that
is there isn't There isn't any conclusive professional way of
saying that it is something that is a decision that
is up to the twelve ordinary people on the jury.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
To decide whether someone's saying or not saying.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Yep, it's not a medical Part of the reason is
that the medicine isn't clear enough either.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Right for me, it's just taken too long, too expensive
a process, you know, and it could have been sharpened
down and sped up and saved a lot of time
and heartache for a lot of people.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
Look, I think there's going to be a lot of
relief amongst a lot of people at this verdict. I
think they'll feel a sense of closure. But I think
it does raise a whole lot of bigger issues that
need to be thought about before we go through the
next Such.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Example, Friday face off of Peter Dunn and Stephen Frank Peter,
I didn't come to you, and I want to come
to you, and I want to start the discussion again
because we had to stop for that news. Bye Wellington
or race your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
I'm finding it extremely boring.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
I'm sorry to interrupt you there, but if Peter Duddes
feeling it's boring, then I'm very good.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
I just think it's not really people had expectations that
when Tory foind Ow about out and Andrew Little said
he was running, that we were going to turn a
new page. There's no evidence of that. I think that
Little had a golden opportunity to appeal across the spectrum
in Wellington. He's reverted very much to being a labor man.
(11:40):
He's entitled his politics, but there was an opportunity to
reach beyond the politics that have divided the council. He
hasn't taken it, and so on the assumption he wins,
it just seems to me we're set for more of
the same, Particularly if we get the same sort of
council that we've had previously. There's not going to be
a breakthrough. There's not going to be a change, and
Wellington's going to continue to suffer well.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
He's particularly really as I said, I try to I
try not to spoil my day by following it. But
one of the things is just getting back into identity politics.
I'm sick of counsel worrying about rainbow crossings instead of
the pipes underge.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Can I just interrupted you you haven't seen or have
you seen his latest social media where he's got a
twins he's got his twin sister who is gay, and
it's married to a woman, and them holding hands and
holding arms, and I mean it's all like, I'm okay,
I'm all right with the rainbow people want.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
I'd just want merit appointment. People who've shown that they've
led something successfully, They've achieved something, often in real leadership
and businesses, often very lonely and getting through. We used
to have the idea of the city fathers. No, you're
not allowed to say that any longer, but basically people
who had succeeded and then gave some of the later
(12:59):
years in their life to run and helping run the city.
That's all gone. We now want this shop window of
diversity that basically means clicking people who've never achieved anything.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
I mean, is it okay to actually, I mean, I've
said that one hundred times on this show that the
whole thing of counsel was people that had iq had
the intellectual property of running businesses, or being educationalists, or
being lawyers that were ready to retire but had energy
(13:30):
and information that they could help the city.
Speaker 4 (13:33):
If you're invited to become a director of a board,
you're a mug. If you don't look at the board
and say, have they got a good if it's a
board that involves a lot of engineer. Is there a
good engineer there? Is there a reasonable accountant? Is there
an okay lawyer there? Someone who can hold the staff
to account because they've got at least as much ability
to ask the right questions as anyone on the staff
(13:56):
is to cover it up. But we don't. That doesn't
happen because we are going for this representativeness in identity
terms instead of representation of achievement.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
One of the things that got me in national politics,
and certainly does at the local level, is that we've
got beyond the days of looking at someone's background and
competence and experience. It's now all your life experience, and
you have to lay that on the line. I'm not
interested in people's upbringing or where they went to school,
or you know, how many kids they've got or what.
(14:29):
I just want to know where they can do the job.
But it seems to me today and all of this
stuff is you've got to be able to prove that
you've come from the wrong side of the tracks, that
you've had it tough, that you've been through the school
of hard knocks and you've come out the other side.
I mean, this is all nonsense, and I think because
of that, we're being dragged down to a level where
if you say, look, take a hypothetic I came from
(14:51):
a privileged background, I have the best education. I've done
very well for myself. You're automatically damned gone.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
Peter, what are we going to do to disagree?
Speaker 2 (15:02):
You're absolutely gone? So can I just ask you both
very quickly so we can move on? Peter Dunn, do
you think Wellington will be a different city under Andrew
Little than torre Faro? Will it be that much better?
Speaker 3 (15:15):
I don't think there'll be the scandals, but it won't
be much better.
Speaker 4 (15:20):
Stephen Franks, I'd agree it's it's probably good. We're probably
I shouldn't complain about boring and boring. When politics is
genuinely boring, you should be glad because you don't want
you don't want them in your life.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Well, don't we feel like we need to kick in
the backside here? Don't we feel like we've got to
get the party started.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
To jestif of that not a politician, Yeah, okay.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
But you know, can't we have a little bit of accommodation.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
It's good to be have inspiring when absolutely positively Wellington
came out and we're in the dumps twenty five years ago.
It did need and people and countries and organizations do
respond to inspiring leadership. But you don't get that if
you have to satisfy the least common to deny. And
(16:08):
that's what we've got now.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
And that's the point really, it's it's leadership is the
key thing that's missing. It's you know, the mayor is
only one vote, but it's been a long time since
we've had a mayor who's got up and said, here's
my vision for the city. This is what I want
to do.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Follow me, follow me.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
You know, that's what we need and we're not getting it.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Pet Friday face off of Peter Dunn and Stephen Franks.
The latest Treasury report claims we need to change the
government policy to prepare for the future. It says massive
change is needed to cater for their aging population. Pete
had done, Should New Zealand just be worried about this
and how will it affect us?
Speaker 4 (16:42):
Well?
Speaker 3 (16:43):
Look, I think that with the Treasury report, I'm always
reminded of Michael Cullens's comment out about another Treasury ideological burp.
I think the Treasury has got to put a viewpoint.
I think it's it's important that it states it. I
don't think it expects nor will any government adopt the
particular solutions that it's proposing. But if you take it
(17:04):
as a stock take of where New Zealand's at and
what our challenges are, I think it's pretty worth reading.
And our problem is a fundamental lack of growth. You know,
we talk about always the hardships in the economy. You
know when people say talk about rising prices, for instance,
I saw a commentator recently make the point that it's
not so much a case of rising prices, it's the
fact that growth isn't there to boost salaries and incomes
(17:27):
to meet current demand. And that's something we've lost sight
of in New Zealand over a long period of time.
We're about maintaining the status quo rather than actually taking
ourselves to the next level. So I think Treasury's warnings
are valid and apt, but I don't expect their solutions
will be implemented.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Stephen Franks, what should the government will this current government
be doing about it? Or should we just sit and
wait and let us all get older and be in
a lot of trouble.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
Well, you have to make your actions consistent. Interestingly, that
the Treasury report is basically reporting on a society that
ceased to be very productive. Our productivity just has not grown.
Incomes grow when you more productive. We were second in
the world and living standards in the fifties and most
(18:13):
where are we now? I think the last one I
saw was thirty eighth or something like that.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
So in seventy five years we've gone from being second
most wealthy country in the world to thirty eighth.
Speaker 4 (18:24):
Yeah, don't coat me on the last one.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Thirty eight. But somewhere somewhere, it's a long.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
Way down, and there's all sorts of things we can't afford.
I mean, I know, for example, one of my daughters
is a doctor, and that we there's a whole lot
of kit and procedures that the system can no longer afford.
That our routine in Australia because we're a third poorer
than they are in income terms, and that makes it
it makes a difference. But we don't do the things
(18:51):
that you need to do not to have low productivity.
We've still got road canes everywhere, in an excess of more,
more safety concern, more risk avoidance, and anyone who tries
to change that gets hammered.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
I do.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
One of the things I'm delighted about is the way
that rents are falling in Wellington, and that's increasing supply.
Christ Biship's done a really good job and Simon Court
and focusing on the fact that the best way to
protect tenants is to have a surplus of properties. But
that's even that nearly every element of that has been attacked,
including by our people my age, you know, who say
(19:28):
that they want Wellington not to change. They don't want
any building more than two stories high. In Auckland. They've
killed the right to build. New Zealanders have want safety
or the voting the middle voters want to be reassured
that nothing will change. Well, they're getting it.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
But I always remember, I think it was the Porter
study in the late eighties early nineties and they're talking
about how New Zealand can grow and develop, and I
remember talking to one of the people who's doing it
and they say, we've encountered a real problem with New Zealanders.
They can see the opportunity over there and what we
could be. But actually, my Saturday lit thing's okay at
the moment, and i'd I really want to make the
(20:07):
sacrifices to get there. And I don't know whether that's
still an attitude, but there was that sense of why
do we need to take that extra step to improve
productivity or whatever it might be, because we're okay, while
we have that mentality, we're going to continue to have
a comfortable, isolated and steadily growing backward lifestyle. And that's
the choice we've got to make. And our political leaders,
(20:30):
be they left right or wherever, have actually got to
start challenging people on that front. But you can't make
improvements in your lives by a government handout. You've got
to make it by creating a sustainable, growing economy that's
going to produce wealth. And how are you going to
do that?
Speaker 2 (20:45):
And Stephen, can I just ask you how Chris Bishop
has more brought the prices of rental properties down in
the last couple of years.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
What's he done by freeing up supply? Suddenly there are
people bringing houses back into the market who didn't want
to be landlords when you couldn't get rid of a
bad tenant and that has been portrayed or has been
reported as being harsh and in favor of landlords. But
actually the landlords in Wellington are now getting a nearly
(21:14):
a ten percent reduction in rents because it's supply that
determines how much you can be offered and then you
can and choose as a tenant.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Now there is a topic that's going to fire you up,
Stephen Franks. I'm sure that six thousand doctors walked off
the job this week and the er were called into
the help settle the pay dispute. Can you tell me
who's at fault here? The doctors. I don't believe doctors
should go on strike, so I know you look at
me like that or the government. Who's at fault here?
Speaker 4 (21:40):
I don't know. I mean, I just know that they're unhappy.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
And well, you said your daughter is a doctor, she'd
be riggy. You're calling you, hey, dad, this is God
old or this is.
Speaker 4 (21:49):
God I know from her perspective, but she's a senior
she's a senior doctor, and there's a whole lot of
concerns that she expresses that would be replicated around a
number of professions. One of them is that younger doctors
do not want to have the working conditions that older
(22:10):
doctors accept it. They don't want all doctors used to
put up with. They don't want the hours, and so
you need more staff. The nurses. They've got theaters that
in Welling Hospital that are fully staffed, ready to go,
but under the conditions they can't do it without a
particular extra person and that person's not rousted on. Now
(22:30):
there's a lot of inefficiency because it's now a national
service and everyone says, well, I can't fix it.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Peter Dunne striking. We talked about it a couple of
weeks ago that there seems to be under a national
government more striking. Do you think if you've got your
gut telling you.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
That, yes, look, the right to strike has got to
be preserved. But I think that there is certainly an
instance where it's not just the doctors, the teachers. It's
almost to the default position now when there's a national
government in power. And one of the things that I
this is probably going to ruffle a whole lot of feathers.
I think that the hospital doctors, the nurses, the teachers,
(23:11):
all these people need to remember their public servants. That's
something they tend to forget that they're not there actually
to follow and if you want to take this, and
I'm not suggesting this in a censorship mode, but they're
there to implement the policy of the government of the day,
whether it be in the classroom or the theater or whatever.
I think one of the things that's happened is that
(23:32):
disconnect means that the notion of serving the public is
running secondary to serving their particular interests. Now, in an
ideal world, you get a balance between the two. But
when I hear people saying if I'm not paid X,
Y or z, the service will suffer, I think that's
a disconnection.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
Well, that comes out in another way. I mean, if
you look at the staff policies now, it all says
that your well being is our primary concern. And I
was told some time ago that the that there's a
real worry that if there's an emergency that young doctors
(24:13):
will take it seriously, they'll go home and look after
their families, because it would be foolish to sacrifice your
own well being for some notion of service.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
The Friday, Okay, Peter, don't give us your hots and
knots for the week. Come on fire, as my hot look.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
I've been really impressed by both the silver ferns and
the black ferns in the last few days. Ready because
of all the trials and tribulations they've been through. I
think they've all shown dignity mana, and I've been extremely
impressed by everyone they've spoken to, articulate and literate. They
appear so big marks to them and well done and
(24:54):
keep it up when or lose. I think they're really impressive.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
It's a very good comment.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Why not. I saw Territory fun Hours comment during the
week that she still wants to be an MP and
a minister, and I just think Tory a dose of
self awareness would be quite relevant at this point after
your performance as mayor, I just think it's time for
you to move on and do something else altogether.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
You don't think she's going to be a future prime minister.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
No, I don't, and I don't think really that New
Zealand deserves.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
It spend of you. You can't beat that, you cannot.
Speaker 4 (25:27):
Be My hearts are just the farmers of New Zealand.
The Fonterra report, the Fonterra.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Which you happen to.
Speaker 4 (25:36):
No, No, I don't. I don't have any animals now
I just have bees and that's not going well. But
the farming has just really been our savior. People don't
realize that the rural areas are feeling good and that
they are still where were you are, in the bulk
of our foreign reserves, and they are still innovating. There's
(26:00):
just an excitement about developing and getting things done, and
they do it in the face of all sorts of
you remember dirty dairying, trying to stop them growing forestry,
all that. So that's my heart, not is it's not
easy to think. There's so many but not at the
moment is New Zealand dicking around about whether it's going
(26:21):
to recognize Palestine. It just seems why do we even
get into that. Why not be like Japan and Singapore
and just shut up. It's not our business. There's nothing
we can do about it. We acted in the Second
World War, we did exactly what Israel is doing. A
war doesn't end until someone says I give up, I've surrendered,
and releases the hostages and rolls over and the Israelis
(26:45):
can't do anything other than keep going. But we don't
need to be there. I don't know why our foreign
ministers in New York.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
Peter Dunn, Stephen Franks, thank you very much for taking
up your time and coming into Friday Face. We'll have
a great weekend. Lovely to see you both.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news talks It'd be Wellington from a weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from news Talk said b.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Joining us for Friday face off is Peter Dune.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Good morning, Peter, good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I don't need to go and the hope haio for
mercabin and minister. Can you come a little bit close
to the morning please, thank you.
Speaker 4 (00:24):
I told to do that.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
And Frank's Ogilvy law director Stephen Franks. We don't need
to go into all the fact that you've been a
parliamentary and your farmer shooter lawyer. How are you? Good morning?
Can you come a little bit closer to your microphone too, please?
Hopefully we'll have as much action, which we didn't one
other time that you were on the show. We were
(00:47):
just having a little bit of a chat or fear
about that. But anyway, moving straight along, a Wellington man
bought an old desk from the op shop at the tip.
It turns out, and he must have known that that
it was an old mayor's desk from the old City
Council office at the town Hall. It contained highly confidential
documents and lading sexual harassment abusive workplace claims. Now I
(01:11):
saw some of those myself with my own very eyes
this morning, Stephen. What do you make of this? I mean,
you would have seen the story, What do you make
of it?
Speaker 4 (01:19):
I usually pooh pooh stories about breaches of privacy just
because privacies are relatively recent law, and everyone goes, oh,
how terrible, when in fact most of the people who
know the people involved, who can actually affect their lives
will probably already know all the stuff, and it's it's
(01:39):
you know, it's bad practice when privacy is breached. But
I always think that it's there's an awful lot of
pearl clutching about the actual effects are usually small. In
this case, looks like that assembled all the sensitive stuff,
locked it away safely.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
And then in an old desk. I mean, it tells
you how safely it is.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Well, it was probably safe because no one no one
had realized it was there, presumably, but I shouldn't be
there's probably someone who could be very hurt. But as
the chairman of the Free Speech Union, I'm pretty keen
on a lot more disclosure and a lot less secrecy.
I think there's far too much suppression of embarrassing information now,
(02:23):
and people ought to know quite a lot of the
things that are kept secret because they should be allowed
to form their own views on the merits of these people.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
You've got my vote on that. I'm against anything that's
withheld because of it. If you've done it and it's public,
and it's public, I mean we should be all taking
it on the chin and getting on with it, should we?
I mean, Peter Dunt, what did you make when you make?
Speaker 4 (02:45):
First?
Speaker 3 (02:45):
When I heard the story, I thought, nothing ever surprises
me about the well in Kent City Council. The fact
that they can't even dispose of desks properly, you know,
why take them to the dump? Why not have auctioned
them off and raised but more capital in the first place.
But the second thing is I always thought when you
left a job, you cleared your desk out. And I'm
surprised that these people who are getting upset, and my
(03:05):
dear friend fran As leading the charge, I thought she'd
have cleared her disk out of anything was hers because
I thought, well, there's I think there's all. I think
there's fran I think there's Mark Bumpsky, I think Kerry Prendergast.
But you take all your stuff with you, don't you?
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Well? Can I just tell you that where I haven't
actually seen the bag. I've seen some of the information,
but I believe that the bags like a big rubbish
bag full of stuff, and they're all pieces of information
that were vital for someone's case that they were having.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
But it's still you know, it shouldn't have been left there.
But as I say, I think the people who who
occupied those desks should have taken their stuff with them
when they left.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
The thing that gets to me out of the Stephen
is the fact that the guy did the right thing
the buyer.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
And they ignored him, laughed at they thought he was
a bit of a duckcase, and and said, well, when
you get some proof he heard the documents. It does
speak to you, said Peter, that there's such a slack
culture in the place. That could be the response.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Yes, I mean, but of course it's really.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Hard to change things now. You can't sack people until
you've proven they've got their hands. In the film, someone's
appointed to be a change manager. But if you can't
change the people, which we've had again since nineteen eighty
when we changed employment law, and we've not been able
to really sack people easily, and so it's really hard
to change culture in a place.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Obviously there's a problem with the culture Peter Dunn. When
someone rings up and says, look, I've got this information,
and the very very first piece of paper that I
saw was a very well known Wellingtonian doing something that
he probably should not, may have may or may not
have done it. Apparently he didn't do. But whatever I
saw it there right in front of me. Surely if
(04:56):
someone from the council should have said stay right there,
will get a van round and we'll pick it all up.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
And there's a number of levels to this. If you're
going to dispose of the furniture, surely someone goes through
the drawers beforehand to check that there's nothing there that
clearly didn't happen. I do remember once hearing a story
in Britain where they found a copy of the Magna
Carta in a draw somewhere, the original, one of four originals.
But that's a slightly different story. But that's the first point.
(05:22):
The second point is if someone does ring up and say, hell,
look I've found all the sensitive material, you don't just
dismiss it out of hand.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Right More to come. I believe there's more to come.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
If you guys have got it obviously this more all
power of your arm. If it's stuff that we would
know about.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Yeah, well, I'm not sure. I'm not privy to that.
But I did see one one particular paper that a
colleague and I just put in front of me, and
it was like, I thought, O, yell, I'm glad it's
not my name on the top of that. Should we
talk about the mayoral race while we've been talking about
I mean, I've been pretty out there saying that it's
(06:02):
bloody boring. Stephen Franks, what are your thoughts.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
You're talking about one, I mean, I understand you in
some of the other cities in the area.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Very interesting.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
Yeah, it's only it's only dreary because everyone is expecting
Andrew to win, and to win handily. So you've taken
the drama out of elections. I as a as a
victim of the ros Valley voters, I think that they
(06:30):
inflict dreary mayors and have been for some time on
Wellington and Andrew's been having to pander to them. I mean,
I'm assuming he can't really be enthusiastic about some of
the things he's been saying, like everyone's going to get
the living wage, whether they whether that's market or not,
and the other concessions. So it's sort of I say,
(06:56):
woring got I actually actively avoid reading about it. It
just depresses me. It doesn't look as if we're going
to get a dramatically different council.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Look, I agree, I think it's a tedious racial raising.
All sorts of hands signals you're going, I'm.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
I'm just going to have a quick break because that
verdicts out and we'll come back.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
And this is news Talks and the breaking news.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
In breaking news, the man who looked at deadly Loafers
Lodge fire that killed five people has been found guilty
after seventeen hours of deliberations. Gasps and quiet explanasion of
yelling out of yes came from the public gallery as
the jury's verdicts were read out in court this morning.
It also now can be revealed that the defendant, who
(07:43):
has interim name suppression, has previous convictions for attempted murder
more than fifteen years ago. So there it is. It's
out guilty Loafus Lodge. We still haven't got his name,
that's obviously still under suppression, Stephen.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Those previous convictions will reassure the jury they did the
right thing. It's a contentious issue around the world as
to whether the current strict, really strict rules against previous
convictions should be should be revealed. I think that the
law has just simply failed to keep up with googling.
(08:22):
In most cases now, despite judges orders, juries commonly go
away and google and get their own information, and the
court just pretends it's not happening.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
I mean that almost amazes me in a modern world
that that can happen, that they can they can. I mean,
if you're on the jury, of course you're going to ask.
I mean if I if I interview someone for a job,
the first thing I do is google them.
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Yeah, exactly, And that there's they've all been clapping their
hands over their ears and eyes and saying, no, we'll
all pretend that the world is as it was. I mean,
what they should be doing is having the the jury asked,
what is the information that you have? What do you
want us to test? We hear the lawyers want to
want to know what's in your mind, and we want
(09:08):
to bring evidence that will address the theories that you
might have formed, because that's how juries work now. But
when you talk to jurors, that's how they work.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Peter, done your initial response to this, it means been
going on for weeks costs and.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to qualify my
remarks by saying that right at the outset, but as
a lay person, that struck me from the beginning that
this was likely to head towards an insanity verdict. But
except that in the last few days of evidence, I
started to change my mind. I thought, when they were
talking about the defendant knowing right from wrong and all
(09:42):
of those sorts of things, I started to think, well,
maybe this is not the easy option that first appeared.
And so I'm not altogether surprised at the guilty verdict.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Yes, I mean, people forget that whether whether you're insane
or not is not a decision by psychologists or the experts.
They provide evidence, but it's actually a decision for the jury.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
It's illegal to well, how can they decide?
Speaker 4 (10:05):
Well, what they're saying is the insanity that's required, as
Peter have just said, is whether they knew the difference
between right and wrong, and so it is something that
is there isn't There isn't any conclusive professional way of
saying that it is something that is a decision that
is up to the twelve ordinary people on the jury.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
To decide whether someone's saying or not saying.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Yep, it's not a medical Part of the reason is
that the medicine isn't clear enough either.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Right for me, it's just taken too long, too expensive
a process, you know, and it could have been sharpened
down and sped up and saved a lot of time
and heartache for a lot of people.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
Look, I think there's going to be a lot of
relief amongst a lot of people at this verdict. I
think they'll feel a sense of closure. But I think
it does raise a whole lot of bigger issues that
need to be thought about before we go through the
next Such.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Example, Friday face off of Peter Dunn and Stephen Frank Peter,
I didn't come to you, and I want to come
to you, and I want to start the discussion again
because we had to stop for that news. Bye Wellington
or race your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
I'm finding it extremely boring.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
I'm sorry to interrupt you there, but if Peter Duddes
feeling it's boring, then I'm very good.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
I just think it's not really people had expectations that
when Tory foind Ow about out and Andrew Little said
he was running, that we were going to turn a
new page. There's no evidence of that. I think that
Little had a golden opportunity to appeal across the spectrum
in Wellington. He's reverted very much to being a labor man.
(11:40):
He's entitled his politics, but there was an opportunity to
reach beyond the politics that have divided the council. He
hasn't taken it, and so on the assumption he wins,
it just seems to me we're set for more of
the same, Particularly if we get the same sort of
council that we've had previously. There's not going to be
a breakthrough. There's not going to be a change, and
Wellington's going to continue to suffer well.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
He's particularly really as I said, I try to I
try not to spoil my day by following it. But
one of the things is just getting back into identity politics.
I'm sick of counsel worrying about rainbow crossings instead of
the pipes underge.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Can I just interrupted you you haven't seen or have
you seen his latest social media where he's got a
twins he's got his twin sister who is gay, and
it's married to a woman, and them holding hands and
holding arms, and I mean it's all like, I'm okay,
I'm all right with the rainbow people want.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
I'd just want merit appointment. People who've shown that they've
led something successfully, They've achieved something, often in real leadership
and businesses, often very lonely and getting through. We used
to have the idea of the city fathers. No, you're
not allowed to say that any longer, but basically people
who had succeeded and then gave some of the later
(12:59):
years in their life to run and helping run the city.
That's all gone. We now want this shop window of
diversity that basically means clicking people who've never achieved anything.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
I mean, is it okay to actually, I mean, I've
said that one hundred times on this show that the
whole thing of counsel was people that had iq had
the intellectual property of running businesses, or being educationalists, or
being lawyers that were ready to retire but had energy
(13:30):
and information that they could help the city.
Speaker 4 (13:33):
If you're invited to become a director of a board,
you're a mug. If you don't look at the board
and say, have they got a good if it's a
board that involves a lot of engineer. Is there a
good engineer there? Is there a reasonable accountant? Is there
an okay lawyer there? Someone who can hold the staff
to account because they've got at least as much ability
to ask the right questions as anyone on the staff
(13:56):
is to cover it up. But we don't. That doesn't
happen because we are going for this representativeness in identity
terms instead of representation of achievement.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
One of the things that got me in national politics,
and certainly does at the local level, is that we've
got beyond the days of looking at someone's background and
competence and experience. It's now all your life experience, and
you have to lay that on the line. I'm not
interested in people's upbringing or where they went to school,
or you know, how many kids they've got or what.
(14:29):
I just want to know where they can do the job.
But it seems to me today and all of this
stuff is you've got to be able to prove that
you've come from the wrong side of the tracks, that
you've had it tough, that you've been through the school
of hard knocks and you've come out the other side.
I mean, this is all nonsense, and I think because
of that, we're being dragged down to a level where
if you say, look, take a hypothetic I came from
(14:51):
a privileged background, I have the best education. I've done
very well for myself. You're automatically damned gone.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
Peter, what are we going to do to disagree?
Speaker 2 (15:02):
You're absolutely gone? So can I just ask you both
very quickly so we can move on? Peter Dunn, do
you think Wellington will be a different city under Andrew
Little than torre Faro? Will it be that much better?
Speaker 3 (15:15):
I don't think there'll be the scandals, but it won't
be much better.
Speaker 4 (15:20):
Stephen Franks, I'd agree it's it's probably good. We're probably
I shouldn't complain about boring and boring. When politics is
genuinely boring, you should be glad because you don't want
you don't want them in your life.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Well, don't we feel like we need to kick in
the backside here? Don't we feel like we've got to
get the party started.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
To jestif of that not a politician, Yeah, okay.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
But you know, can't we have a little bit of accommodation.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
It's good to be have inspiring when absolutely positively Wellington
came out and we're in the dumps twenty five years ago.
It did need and people and countries and organizations do
respond to inspiring leadership. But you don't get that if
you have to satisfy the least common to deny. And
(16:08):
that's what we've got now.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
And that's the point really, it's it's leadership is the
key thing that's missing. It's you know, the mayor is
only one vote, but it's been a long time since
we've had a mayor who's got up and said, here's
my vision for the city. This is what I want
to do.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Follow me, follow me.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
You know, that's what we need and we're not getting it.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Pet Friday face off of Peter Dunn and Stephen Franks.
The latest Treasury report claims we need to change the
government policy to prepare for the future. It says massive
change is needed to cater for their aging population. Pete
had done, Should New Zealand just be worried about this
and how will it affect us?
Speaker 4 (16:42):
Well?
Speaker 3 (16:43):
Look, I think that with the Treasury report, I'm always
reminded of Michael Cullens's comment out about another Treasury ideological burp.
I think the Treasury has got to put a viewpoint.
I think it's it's important that it states it. I
don't think it expects nor will any government adopt the
particular solutions that it's proposing. But if you take it
(17:04):
as a stock take of where New Zealand's at and
what our challenges are, I think it's pretty worth reading.
And our problem is a fundamental lack of growth. You know,
we talk about always the hardships in the economy. You
know when people say talk about rising prices, for instance,
I saw a commentator recently make the point that it's
not so much a case of rising prices, it's the
fact that growth isn't there to boost salaries and incomes
(17:27):
to meet current demand. And that's something we've lost sight
of in New Zealand over a long period of time.
We're about maintaining the status quo rather than actually taking
ourselves to the next level. So I think Treasury's warnings
are valid and apt, but I don't expect their solutions
will be implemented.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Stephen Franks, what should the government will this current government
be doing about it? Or should we just sit and
wait and let us all get older and be in
a lot of trouble.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
Well, you have to make your actions consistent. Interestingly, that
the Treasury report is basically reporting on a society that
ceased to be very productive. Our productivity just has not grown.
Incomes grow when you more productive. We were second in
the world and living standards in the fifties and most
(18:13):
where are we now? I think the last one I
saw was thirty eighth or something like that.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
So in seventy five years we've gone from being second
most wealthy country in the world to thirty eighth.
Speaker 4 (18:24):
Yeah, don't coat me on the last one.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Thirty eight. But somewhere somewhere, it's a long.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
Way down, and there's all sorts of things we can't afford.
I mean, I know, for example, one of my daughters
is a doctor, and that we there's a whole lot
of kit and procedures that the system can no longer afford.
That our routine in Australia because we're a third poorer
than they are in income terms, and that makes it
it makes a difference. But we don't do the things
(18:51):
that you need to do not to have low productivity.
We've still got road canes everywhere, in an excess of more,
more safety concern, more risk avoidance, and anyone who tries
to change that gets hammered.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
I do.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
One of the things I'm delighted about is the way
that rents are falling in Wellington, and that's increasing supply.
Christ Biship's done a really good job and Simon Court
and focusing on the fact that the best way to
protect tenants is to have a surplus of properties. But
that's even that nearly every element of that has been attacked,
including by our people my age, you know, who say
(19:28):
that they want Wellington not to change. They don't want
any building more than two stories high. In Auckland. They've
killed the right to build. New Zealanders have want safety
or the voting the middle voters want to be reassured
that nothing will change. Well, they're getting it.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
But I always remember, I think it was the Porter
study in the late eighties early nineties and they're talking
about how New Zealand can grow and develop, and I
remember talking to one of the people who's doing it
and they say, we've encountered a real problem with New Zealanders.
They can see the opportunity over there and what we
could be. But actually, my Saturday lit thing's okay at
the moment, and i'd I really want to make the
(20:07):
sacrifices to get there. And I don't know whether that's
still an attitude, but there was that sense of why
do we need to take that extra step to improve
productivity or whatever it might be, because we're okay, while
we have that mentality, we're going to continue to have
a comfortable, isolated and steadily growing backward lifestyle. And that's
the choice we've got to make. And our political leaders,
(20:30):
be they left right or wherever, have actually got to
start challenging people on that front. But you can't make
improvements in your lives by a government handout. You've got
to make it by creating a sustainable, growing economy that's
going to produce wealth. And how are you going to
do that?
Speaker 2 (20:45):
And Stephen, can I just ask you how Chris Bishop
has more brought the prices of rental properties down in
the last couple of years.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
What's he done by freeing up supply? Suddenly there are
people bringing houses back into the market who didn't want
to be landlords when you couldn't get rid of a
bad tenant and that has been portrayed or has been
reported as being harsh and in favor of landlords. But
actually the landlords in Wellington are now getting a nearly
(21:14):
a ten percent reduction in rents because it's supply that
determines how much you can be offered and then you
can and choose as a tenant.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Now there is a topic that's going to fire you up,
Stephen Franks. I'm sure that six thousand doctors walked off
the job this week and the er were called into
the help settle the pay dispute. Can you tell me
who's at fault here? The doctors. I don't believe doctors
should go on strike, so I know you look at
me like that or the government. Who's at fault here?
Speaker 4 (21:40):
I don't know. I mean, I just know that they're unhappy.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
And well, you said your daughter is a doctor, she'd
be riggy. You're calling you, hey, dad, this is God
old or this is.
Speaker 4 (21:49):
God I know from her perspective, but she's a senior
she's a senior doctor, and there's a whole lot of
concerns that she expresses that would be replicated around a
number of professions. One of them is that younger doctors
do not want to have the working conditions that older
(22:10):
doctors accept it. They don't want all doctors used to
put up with. They don't want the hours, and so
you need more staff. The nurses. They've got theaters that
in Welling Hospital that are fully staffed, ready to go,
but under the conditions they can't do it without a
particular extra person and that person's not rousted on. Now
(22:30):
there's a lot of inefficiency because it's now a national
service and everyone says, well, I can't fix it.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Peter Dunne striking. We talked about it a couple of
weeks ago that there seems to be under a national
government more striking. Do you think if you've got your
gut telling you.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
That, yes, look, the right to strike has got to
be preserved. But I think that there is certainly an
instance where it's not just the doctors, the teachers. It's
almost to the default position now when there's a national
government in power. And one of the things that I
this is probably going to ruffle a whole lot of feathers.
I think that the hospital doctors, the nurses, the teachers,
(23:11):
all these people need to remember their public servants. That's
something they tend to forget that they're not there actually
to follow and if you want to take this, and
I'm not suggesting this in a censorship mode, but they're
there to implement the policy of the government of the day,
whether it be in the classroom or the theater or whatever.
I think one of the things that's happened is that
(23:32):
disconnect means that the notion of serving the public is
running secondary to serving their particular interests. Now, in an
ideal world, you get a balance between the two. But
when I hear people saying if I'm not paid X,
Y or z, the service will suffer, I think that's
a disconnection.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
Well, that comes out in another way. I mean, if
you look at the staff policies now, it all says
that your well being is our primary concern. And I
was told some time ago that the that there's a
real worry that if there's an emergency that young doctors
(24:13):
will take it seriously, they'll go home and look after
their families, because it would be foolish to sacrifice your
own well being for some notion of service.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
The Friday, Okay, Peter, don't give us your hots and
knots for the week. Come on fire, as my hot look.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
I've been really impressed by both the silver ferns and
the black ferns in the last few days. Ready because
of all the trials and tribulations they've been through. I
think they've all shown dignity mana, and I've been extremely
impressed by everyone they've spoken to, articulate and literate. They
appear so big marks to them and well done and
(24:54):
keep it up when or lose. I think they're really impressive.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
It's a very good comment.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Why not. I saw Territory fun Hours comment during the
week that she still wants to be an MP and
a minister, and I just think Tory a dose of
self awareness would be quite relevant at this point after
your performance as mayor, I just think it's time for
you to move on and do something else altogether.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
You don't think she's going to be a future prime minister.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
No, I don't, and I don't think really that New
Zealand deserves.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
It spend of you. You can't beat that, you cannot.
Speaker 4 (25:27):
Be My hearts are just the farmers of New Zealand.
The Fonterra report, the Fonterra.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Which you happen to.
Speaker 4 (25:36):
No, No, I don't. I don't have any animals now
I just have bees and that's not going well. But
the farming has just really been our savior. People don't
realize that the rural areas are feeling good and that
they are still where were you are, in the bulk
of our foreign reserves, and they are still innovating. There's
(26:00):
just an excitement about developing and getting things done, and
they do it in the face of all sorts of
you remember dirty dairying, trying to stop them growing forestry,
all that. So that's my heart, not is it's not
easy to think. There's so many but not at the
moment is New Zealand dicking around about whether it's going
(26:21):
to recognize Palestine. It just seems why do we even
get into that. Why not be like Japan and Singapore
and just shut up. It's not our business. There's nothing
we can do about it. We acted in the Second
World War, we did exactly what Israel is doing. A
war doesn't end until someone says I give up, I've surrendered,
and releases the hostages and rolls over and the Israelis
(26:45):
can't do anything other than keep going. But we don't
need to be there. I don't know why our foreign
ministers in New York.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
Peter Dunn, Stephen Franks, thank you very much for taking
up your time and coming into Friday Face. We'll have
a great weekend. Lovely to see you both.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news talks It'd be Wellington from a weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.