Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, earlier in the week you would have heard us
speak to the Federal Member for Solomon, Luke Gosling about
the Darwin Port lace. He was yesterday due to meet
with Lambridge on site to talk about the possibility of
the Chinese owned company offloading the port to an Australian company. Now,
yesterday the Northern Territory government confirmed that they've been engaging
with the Federal government since November last year looking at
(00:21):
options for the Darwin Port and that all steps necessary
are going to be taken to try to secure its future.
The Northern Territories Treasurer and also Minister for Transport into Infrastructure,
Bill Yan joins me on the line. Good morning Bill.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Good morning Katie, Good morning everyone in the top end.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Now, Minister, you were on the show last week on
the week that was, and you had said that there
was work happening behind the scenes in this space. What
work is happening on this lease?
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Yeah, well, look it stems right back to November k
that there was a financial report put out from the
port and showed an anomaly as far as their finances went.
So we started doing some work and requesting information from
Landbridge way back in November and from that I had
(01:12):
meetings with the Federal government, as I said on radio
last week in early December, with Catherine King, and we
met with people from Treasury in Canberra as well. So
we've been doing some work around what those issues with
the finances of port were way back then, and we've
been working through it with that due diligence since that
(01:34):
point in time, and that sort of culminated in as
a meeting happening tomorrow in Canberra. And this was organized
a number of weeks ago just to finalize what some
of those things are and then formulate a decision I suppose,
and a position for the territory in relation to the port.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
So, Minister, I mean my understanding is that you know
that when this lease was put in place, there was
the option for the Northern Territory government to break that
lease at any point if you felt that Lambridge wasn't
actually complying with the terms. Is that the.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Case, Well, that's all those provisions in that lease, Cadie
that are there and said, that's some of the stuff
that we're looking at and working through at the moment.
So I guess there's a number there's a number of
different things in there, and that's what we've been working
with the federal governmentor on to see what what those
positions are. And of course there's been lots of legal
advice backwards and forwards, and lots of letters to to
(02:36):
Lanmdbridge and responses back. So it said, it's that piece
that we've been working through and we continued to work
through that to make sure that we're doing the right thing,
not just coming out in the media like it's happened
recent last week say saying oh, well there's an issue
with the port, Lanbridge should sell it to an Australian organization.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Think the big question is, you know, like the issue
of security is obviously one thing, but then the you know,
the flip side of that is are Lambridge adhering to
all of their least requirements and or are they not?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Yeah, I said, and that's the work that we're doing
at the moment. Cartie. So they're required under the lease
to do certain things like to develop the port and
to maintain solvency, maintain affective control. There's issues around this
overseas debt, which is what has triggered the questions now
as to are they sold are they not? Who maintains
(03:33):
control of any debt in relation to the port. So
I said, these are all the things that we've been
working through since November to make sure that we do
things right and do things properly in conjunction with Lanmbridge,
because we need that the port is important not just
to the territory of economy also nationally so and that's why
(03:55):
we said. We've had Luke Goslin come out in the
last week saying well, the threat government needs to do
this and they should buy the port and should stump up.
So that's why we put it to the Albanisi yesterday.
So if you're serious about it, well, okay, stump up
the money and talk to Landbridge and take control back
of the port. But rather than just with what had come.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Out like that's sort of one one aspect of it,
I suppose, in the sense that the federal government could
do that. But then the other aspect of it is
if they if they're not adhering to their lease requirements,
then it would be possible to break that lease for
the for the Northern Territory government to break that lease.
So which path are you are you heading down here?
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well? And so that's part of those very very confidential
and high level discussions are going to be happening in
Cambrid tomorrow. Kay, So I can't preempt those discussions that
we're going to have with the Federal government, but that'll
be taking place tomorrow. Louise McCormick from d Allies flying
to Cambrid today, she has clear instructions from myself and
(04:59):
from Gouver as to what our position is. Should be
meeting with officials in Canberra tomorrow to have those discussions
and to work out a position and to see where
we go forward. I said, after those discussions with Canberra tomorrow,
and I said members from Treasury, members from the distance
(05:20):
in infrastructure, I believe people from the Prime Minister's office
will have a clear idea of where we are probably
tomorrow Friday.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Minister, do you think it could cause a diplomatic issue
if the Federal government or then all the like, if
either the Federal government says they want out, or if
you the Northern Territory government find a way to break
the lease, if you try to force Lambridge to offload
the port. Do you think it's going to cause a
diplomatic issue.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Oh, honestly, Cartie, I don't know. I don't think so
I think this is strictly a business decision at the
end of the day between Lanbridge and the Northern Territory government.
I think that'll be for probably bigger heads than me
to determine whether or not it's going to cause a
diplomatic incident. But what we need to make sure Katie
is that whatever we do in relations to port, we're
(06:11):
doing what's in the best interests of the territory and
territories at the end of the day, we're putting the
territory first, and all the decisions that we're making, excuse me,
in relation to not just a port, but all the
other business decisions and economic decisions we're making the territory.
So this is just another one of those, Minister.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
I know there'll be people listening this morning who've maybe
been around in the Northern Territory for a long time
that'll be going, you know, why is the CLP now
you know, not happy with this or looking further into this.
They should have done that in the first place before
the lease was made or created. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Look, look, I can't speak for what's happened in the past,
k and I can't speak for that previously. Oven. I'm
looking at the here and now and like the current
state and the future of the territory. So said, these
issues have come up around the finances with land Bridge
through that financial report back in November. So I'm acting
(07:08):
on the information I've got there, and again I'm putting
the territory and territory in's first and foremost. Of course,
the national security also becomes a part of that when
you look at the current state of play internationally. The
port at the end of the day, is of strategic
importance to Australia.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
It certainly is. Minister in an ideal world. What are
you hoping for from that meeting tomorrow with the federal government.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Well, what I'm certainly hopeful k some clear direction as
to what our next steps are going to be. We've
been tictacking with the Federal government as to where we're
at and what decisions we may make, so I'm hoping
to have a clear I suppose it's a clear idea
and a clear direction as of tomorrow as to where
(07:55):
we may be going and what we might do with
the port. So that's my ultimate hope and whatever decision
that comes out from those meetings and in discussions with
Luise and myself and the course the Chief Minister and
the rest of Cabinet. Then we'll be able to let
everybody know what's that stuff.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
I mean, is it a bit cheeky of the colp
government though, now to put this on the federal government
when the reality of it is, if there is a
situation with Lambridge, aren't upholding all the requirements of their lease,
you guys can actually break that lease.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Now, well, you need to go and ask the Federal
Member for Solomon that, because he was the one that
raised it publicly in the media saying that, well, we
should take it back and it should be a private
partnership and the federal government should be involved. And we've
been doing what we need to do with our due
diligence behind the scenes moving forward is to provide that certainly,
(08:50):
because what we want to do is raise concern and
uncertainty for the port itself, the proponents using the port,
the people who work there, the future. We were doing
what we needed to do in the correct manner. The
way that the Member for Solomon has now come out
and throwing this in the public space to get a
little bit of media around it has now caused issues
(09:12):
for the people working out and for the proponents and
creates uncertainty in business world. So that's the last thing
that we wanted to do. We were doing things in
the correct manner and once we had a decision point,
we would have been able to then sit down with
Landbridge and work out where we went to. And now
the Member of Solon's has thrown out in the public
(09:32):
space and thrown out in the media and has created
a problem that didn't need to be there at the
end of the day. But they said he's the one
that said federal involvement. We were working with the federal
government to get assistance with legal advice and other bits
and pieces of stuff that was a little bit probably
beyond us here in the territory that they have more capacity,
(09:54):
and that was the work that we were doing with them,
and we spoke to the federal government about assistance should
thing happened and we weren't able to cover everything in
the first instance with the federal govint step in and
help us out, and they gave us that commitment that
they would bill.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
We are going to have to get ready to wrap
things up. But I am just about to speak to
the independent Member for Johnson. We know the Chief Minister's
handling of the ICACS findings regarding the improper conduct of
a senior public officer. It is continuing to be an issue.
The Member for Johnson believes the Chief Minister needs to
take swift and decisive action against this public officer. Isn't
(10:31):
a failure of leadership that she isn't really doing anything
about this situation.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Look, Katie's got nothing to do with the leadership ONTs. However,
the Ikackers made these recommendations and put out these findings,
and I am the Chief Minister and all members of
Parliament are banned by the IKACK Act. We're not allowed
to discuss disclose anything about what the IKACK has done.
(10:58):
So the IKAK has put out these recommendations and binding
and legally and by law, I'm not allowed to talk
about it. Even if I knew, I'm not allowed to
say anything. I can't disclose anything I'm not allowed to
because then I am actually in breach of the law.
So there's stuff that maybe ACPE could do, but certainly
the Chief Minister, myself and other ministers, we're bound by
(11:21):
the law under that Ohkakdak, we're not allowed even if
we wanted to to do anything.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
I mean, I guess the problem is here that you know,
from reading the report and then knowing the situation that
the former Children's Commissioner, Colle Gwynn was in the you know,
the two situations seemed to seem from the art set
as though they could be looked at in a similar
sort of way. Now we know what the outcome was
(11:48):
for the former Children's Commissioner, and it was you know,
it was horrendous how that all played out in the
public eye and the way that it was dealt with.
But the problem here is, I suppose is that you
so given the fact that we don't know exactly who
this person is, we don't know what position they hold,
but the concerns that have been raised and you know,
(12:11):
the outcome really make you question whether that person can
indeed stay in a senior role. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
And look when you compare those two situations, the fact
that the colleing win one was it wasn't done by IKAK.
It was given to police and police were investigating that.
And the difference here is that the IKAK got this one.
There's two sorts of I suppose, different sets of rules.
The IKAC one is really quite strict in what you
(12:41):
can do and what you can't do, what you can say,
and what you can and I thought, it's certainly not
in the public eye. Unfortunately, the Colleen Gwin incident was
played out in the public and in the media because
it was pushed through channels. I mean, I said, I'm
(13:01):
as frustrated as everybody, Katie. This is it's certainly not
what have taken place, But it's up to Ika to
make those recommendations.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
What is going to happen though, if this person is
named in parliament under parliamentary privilege, will it be damaging?
Speaker 2 (13:19):
That will be the next question. So yeah, if that
takes place, Katie, then of course whoever that public servant is,
their name will be out there in the public domain.
I said, it's a very good question. What is going
to happen next if that If that happens.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
It could be it could be very damaging for the
government if if that.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Happens, well, and especially and for that individual as well,
they'll be publicly named and shamed. If Justine Davis decided
to do that under parliamentary privilege, and that's the only
place that she could do it because she's not allowed
to do it in public because she's also been by
the Ikach actor as well.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Yeah, well, look we are going to be catching up
with Justine in just a couple of minutes time. Bill.
A couple of listener questions or just really one listener questions.
Someone text through and said, didn't Bill Yan talk about
this on the week that was on Friday? Didn't he
start the discussion about the port?
Speaker 2 (14:18):
I believe that Luke Gosling was on radio a couple
of days in the media a few days before. I
always spoke about it on Friday. That's why it was
raised on the week that was with you on Friday.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Well, look, it's an interesting one. I'll be fascinated to
see exactly what comes out of the discussions in Canberra. Bill,
keep us up to date. Will be very interested in
hearing exactly what happens. Thank you, thanks for your time
this morning.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
We'll do have a great day, Katie.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Thank you. You two
Well, earlier in the week you would have heard us
speak to the Federal Member for Solomon, Luke Gosling about
the Darwin Port lace. He was yesterday due to meet
with Lambridge on site to talk about the possibility of
the Chinese owned company offloading the port to an Australian company. Now,
yesterday the Northern Territory government confirmed that they've been engaging
with the Federal government since November last year looking at
(00:21):
options for the Darwin Port and that all steps necessary
are going to be taken to try to secure its future.
The Northern Territories Treasurer and also Minister for Transport into Infrastructure,
Bill Yan joins me on the line. Good morning Bill.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Good morning Katie, Good morning everyone in the top end.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Now, Minister, you were on the show last week on
the week that was, and you had said that there
was work happening behind the scenes in this space. What
work is happening on this lease?
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Yeah, well, look it stems right back to November k
that there was a financial report put out from the
port and showed an anomaly as far as their finances went.
So we started doing some work and requesting information from
Landbridge way back in November and from that I had
(01:12):
meetings with the Federal government, as I said on radio
last week in early December, with Catherine King, and we
met with people from Treasury in Canberra as well. So
we've been doing some work around what those issues with
the finances of port were way back then, and we've
been working through it with that due diligence since that
(01:34):
point in time, and that sort of culminated in as
a meeting happening tomorrow in Canberra. And this was organized
a number of weeks ago just to finalize what some
of those things are and then formulate a decision I suppose,
and a position for the territory in relation to the port.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
So, Minister, I mean my understanding is that you know
that when this lease was put in place, there was
the option for the Northern Territory government to break that
lease at any point if you felt that Lambridge wasn't
actually complying with the terms. Is that the.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Case, Well, that's all those provisions in that lease, Cadie
that are there and said, that's some of the stuff
that we're looking at and working through at the moment.
So I guess there's a number there's a number of
different things in there, and that's what we've been working
with the federal governmentor on to see what what those
positions are. And of course there's been lots of legal
advice backwards and forwards, and lots of letters to to
(02:36):
Lanmdbridge and responses back. So it said, it's that piece
that we've been working through and we continued to work
through that to make sure that we're doing the right thing,
not just coming out in the media like it's happened
recent last week say saying oh, well there's an issue
with the port, Lanbridge should sell it to an Australian organization.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Think the big question is, you know, like the issue
of security is obviously one thing, but then the you know,
the flip side of that is are Lambridge adhering to
all of their least requirements and or are they not?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Yeah, I said, and that's the work that we're doing
at the moment. Cartie. So they're required under the lease
to do certain things like to develop the port and
to maintain solvency, maintain affective control. There's issues around this
overseas debt, which is what has triggered the questions now
as to are they sold are they not? Who maintains
(03:33):
control of any debt in relation to the port. So
I said, these are all the things that we've been
working through since November to make sure that we do
things right and do things properly in conjunction with Lanmbridge,
because we need that the port is important not just
to the territory of economy also nationally so and that's why
(03:55):
we said. We've had Luke Goslin come out in the
last week saying well, the threat government needs to do
this and they should buy the port and should stump up.
So that's why we put it to the Albanisi yesterday.
So if you're serious about it, well, okay, stump up
the money and talk to Landbridge and take control back
of the port. But rather than just with what had come.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Out like that's sort of one one aspect of it,
I suppose, in the sense that the federal government could
do that. But then the other aspect of it is
if they if they're not adhering to their lease requirements,
then it would be possible to break that lease for
the for the Northern Territory government to break that lease.
So which path are you are you heading down here?
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well? And so that's part of those very very confidential
and high level discussions are going to be happening in
Cambrid tomorrow. Kay, So I can't preempt those discussions that
we're going to have with the Federal government, but that'll
be taking place tomorrow. Louise McCormick from d Allies flying
to Cambrid today, she has clear instructions from myself and
(04:59):
from Gouver as to what our position is. Should be
meeting with officials in Canberra tomorrow to have those discussions
and to work out a position and to see where
we go forward. I said, after those discussions with Canberra tomorrow,
and I said members from Treasury, members from the distance
(05:20):
in infrastructure, I believe people from the Prime Minister's office
will have a clear idea of where we are probably
tomorrow Friday.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Minister, do you think it could cause a diplomatic issue
if the Federal government or then all the like, if
either the Federal government says they want out, or if
you the Northern Territory government find a way to break
the lease, if you try to force Lambridge to offload
the port. Do you think it's going to cause a
diplomatic issue.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Oh, honestly, Cartie, I don't know. I don't think so
I think this is strictly a business decision at the
end of the day between Lanbridge and the Northern Territory government.
I think that'll be for probably bigger heads than me
to determine whether or not it's going to cause a
diplomatic incident. But what we need to make sure Katie
is that whatever we do in relations to port, we're
(06:11):
doing what's in the best interests of the territory and
territories at the end of the day, we're putting the
territory first, and all the decisions that we're making, excuse me,
in relation to not just a port, but all the
other business decisions and economic decisions we're making the territory.
So this is just another one of those, Minister.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
I know there'll be people listening this morning who've maybe
been around in the Northern Territory for a long time
that'll be going, you know, why is the CLP now
you know, not happy with this or looking further into this.
They should have done that in the first place before
the lease was made or created. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Look, look, I can't speak for what's happened in the past,
k and I can't speak for that previously. Oven. I'm
looking at the here and now and like the current
state and the future of the territory. So said, these
issues have come up around the finances with land Bridge
through that financial report back in November. So I'm acting
(07:08):
on the information I've got there, and again I'm putting
the territory and territory in's first and foremost. Of course,
the national security also becomes a part of that when
you look at the current state of play internationally. The
port at the end of the day, is of strategic
importance to Australia.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
It certainly is. Minister in an ideal world. What are
you hoping for from that meeting tomorrow with the federal government.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Well, what I'm certainly hopeful k some clear direction as
to what our next steps are going to be. We've
been tictacking with the Federal government as to where we're
at and what decisions we may make, so I'm hoping
to have a clear I suppose it's a clear idea
and a clear direction as of tomorrow as to where
(07:55):
we may be going and what we might do with
the port. So that's my ultimate hope and whatever decision
that comes out from those meetings and in discussions with
Luise and myself and the course the Chief Minister and
the rest of Cabinet. Then we'll be able to let
everybody know what's that stuff.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
I mean, is it a bit cheeky of the colp
government though, now to put this on the federal government
when the reality of it is, if there is a
situation with Lambridge, aren't upholding all the requirements of their lease,
you guys can actually break that lease.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Now, well, you need to go and ask the Federal
Member for Solomon that, because he was the one that
raised it publicly in the media saying that, well, we
should take it back and it should be a private
partnership and the federal government should be involved. And we've
been doing what we need to do with our due
diligence behind the scenes moving forward is to provide that certainly,
(08:50):
because what we want to do is raise concern and
uncertainty for the port itself, the proponents using the port,
the people who work there, the future. We were doing
what we needed to do in the correct manner. The
way that the Member for Solomon has now come out
and throwing this in the public space to get a
little bit of media around it has now caused issues
(09:12):
for the people working out and for the proponents and
creates uncertainty in business world. So that's the last thing
that we wanted to do. We were doing things in
the correct manner and once we had a decision point,
we would have been able to then sit down with
Landbridge and work out where we went to. And now
the Member of Solon's has thrown out in the public
(09:32):
space and thrown out in the media and has created
a problem that didn't need to be there at the
end of the day. But they said he's the one
that said federal involvement. We were working with the federal
government to get assistance with legal advice and other bits
and pieces of stuff that was a little bit probably
beyond us here in the territory that they have more capacity,
(09:54):
and that was the work that we were doing with them,
and we spoke to the federal government about assistance should
thing happened and we weren't able to cover everything in
the first instance with the federal govint step in and
help us out, and they gave us that commitment that
they would bill.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
We are going to have to get ready to wrap
things up. But I am just about to speak to
the independent Member for Johnson. We know the Chief Minister's
handling of the ICACS findings regarding the improper conduct of
a senior public officer. It is continuing to be an issue.
The Member for Johnson believes the Chief Minister needs to
take swift and decisive action against this public officer. Isn't
(10:31):
a failure of leadership that she isn't really doing anything
about this situation.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Look, Katie's got nothing to do with the leadership ONTs. However,
the Ikackers made these recommendations and put out these findings,
and I am the Chief Minister and all members of
Parliament are banned by the IKACK Act. We're not allowed
to discuss disclose anything about what the IKACK has done.
(10:58):
So the IKAK has put out these recommendations and binding
and legally and by law, I'm not allowed to talk
about it. Even if I knew, I'm not allowed to
say anything. I can't disclose anything I'm not allowed to
because then I am actually in breach of the law.
So there's stuff that maybe ACPE could do, but certainly
the Chief Minister, myself and other ministers, we're bound by
(11:21):
the law under that Ohkakdak, we're not allowed even if
we wanted to to do anything.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
I mean, I guess the problem is here that you know,
from reading the report and then knowing the situation that
the former Children's Commissioner, Colle Gwynn was in the you know,
the two situations seemed to seem from the art set
as though they could be looked at in a similar
sort of way. Now we know what the outcome was
(11:48):
for the former Children's Commissioner, and it was you know,
it was horrendous how that all played out in the
public eye and the way that it was dealt with.
But the problem here is, I suppose is that you
so given the fact that we don't know exactly who
this person is, we don't know what position they hold,
but the concerns that have been raised and you know,
(12:11):
the outcome really make you question whether that person can
indeed stay in a senior role. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
And look when you compare those two situations, the fact
that the colleing win one was it wasn't done by IKAK.
It was given to police and police were investigating that.
And the difference here is that the IKAK got this one.
There's two sorts of I suppose, different sets of rules.
The IKAC one is really quite strict in what you
(12:41):
can do and what you can't do, what you can say,
and what you can and I thought, it's certainly not
in the public eye. Unfortunately, the Colleen Gwin incident was
played out in the public and in the media because
it was pushed through channels. I mean, I said, I'm
(13:01):
as frustrated as everybody, Katie. This is it's certainly not
what have taken place, But it's up to Ika to
make those recommendations.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
What is going to happen though, if this person is
named in parliament under parliamentary privilege, will it be damaging?
Speaker 2 (13:19):
That will be the next question. So yeah, if that
takes place, Katie, then of course whoever that public servant is,
their name will be out there in the public domain.
I said, it's a very good question. What is going
to happen next if that If that happens.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
It could be it could be very damaging for the
government if if that.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Happens, well, and especially and for that individual as well,
they'll be publicly named and shamed. If Justine Davis decided
to do that under parliamentary privilege, and that's the only
place that she could do it because she's not allowed
to do it in public because she's also been by
the Ikach actor as well.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Yeah, well, look we are going to be catching up
with Justine in just a couple of minutes time. Bill.
A couple of listener questions or just really one listener questions.
Someone text through and said, didn't Bill Yan talk about
this on the week that was on Friday? Didn't he
start the discussion about the port?
Speaker 2 (14:18):
I believe that Luke Gosling was on radio a couple
of days in the media a few days before. I
always spoke about it on Friday. That's why it was
raised on the week that was with you on Friday.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Well, look, it's an interesting one. I'll be fascinated to
see exactly what comes out of the discussions in Canberra. Bill,
keep us up to date. Will be very interested in
hearing exactly what happens. Thank you, thanks for your time
this morning.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
We'll do have a great day, Katie.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Thank you. You two
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!