March 3, 2026 • 12 mins
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins believes that the strikes on Iran from the US and Israel were illegal, and the Government needs to be clearer on its position.
Speaking to John MacDonald, The Leader of the Opposition said he thinks a regime change is required in Iran, but legal avenues should've been considered.
"It needs to be in adherence with international law, which this is not."
If you're talking about a regime change, you need to have a plan to affect that"
On the news that the Governments bootcamps for young offenders are restarting, Hipkins says he does not support them.
"The first one was an abject failure, all of the evidence suggests they don't work."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk Z'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
So we're going to catch up with opposition and labor.
There the Chris Spkins, Chris Koda. John, I've been reading
what Phil Goff said to say. Do you agree that
New Zealand has lost its foreign affairs Mojo?
Speaker 3 (00:25):
It's similar seem to have lost our independent streak that's
been a feature of our foreign policy for quite a
long time, and our current governments does seem to be
struggling to identify where we stand on a bunch of issues.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Would would you say that we're at the complete opposite
from what we were in the eighties when we told
the States what to do with their nuclear ships.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Well, it's hard to know. I mean, the government sort
of equivocate so much and it's very hard to get
out of them exactly where they stand on this. So
we were pretty you know, pretty clear in the nineteen
eighties where we stood on nuclear free We were pretty
clear in the early two thousands where we stood on
the Iraq War, on issues around Iran, on issues around
Donald Trump's tariffs. You know, on a range of different issues.
(01:06):
It's difficult to actually know what the government's view is.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
So what's yours. Let's get it, get it on paper, officially.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Unequivocally opposed to Donald Trump's tariffs and.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Run, right, You're opposed to run. So is that some
sort of acceptance of the regime in Iran?
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Absolutely not a so horrific regime in Iran, But any
action around that needs to be legal, So it needs
to be in adherence with international law. This is not
and it needs to. Actually, if you're talking about regime change,
you need to have a plan to affect that. Bombing
Iran without a plan to actually follow through is pretty reckless.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
How would international law enable what Israel and the US
set out to do?
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Well, it won't because what they're doing is illegal.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Well, so therefore, so therefore there's no other way of
getting rid of the regime, is there?
Speaker 3 (02:05):
But what they're doing now is not necessarily going to
get rid of the regime.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
But okay, I'll put.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
It, I'll put it.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I'll put it differently. I mean we're doucing on the
head of a pin here. I mean international law is
the is the gatekeeper, and would prevent action being taken
that may contribute towards the regime being given the boot.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Well, there's certainly no assurance that the regime is going
to be given the boot.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Now, how would international law make sure we did a
better job of getting rid of them or trying to
get rid of them? It was it wouldn't. I just wouldn't.
It would get in the way time and time again,
wouldn't it.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
But is that the US is objective? Is the U
s objective regime change? Or is it to stop them
getting nuclear weapons? Of it's to stop them getting nuclear weapons.
There's certainly a way of preventing that. There was previously arrangement,
arrangement in place that was stopping I aren't getting nuclear weapons,
and Donald Trump was the one that scrapped it in
the first place.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
See, there's been no shortage of people this morning saying
that we need to be wearing I mean Wayne Matt
was also in the news today saying the same that
we need to be mindful of Donald Trump and not
poke the beer. I mean, what's your attitude towards that.
Do you endorse running scared of Donald Trump?
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Absolutely not. I think the Zeland should be three B
firm in its independence and we should say what we
think is a.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Country in relation to what's going on in the Middle East.
I said that you're saying that it shows how wrong
the government's plan to import liquefied natural gases and that
we should be trying to be more energy independent. Where
does oil and gas fit into that.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
In what regard? I mean, we're running out of gas
and we're running out of oil.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Well, I would have thought that exploration, enabling exploration might
contribute towards our energy independence.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
We've spent billions of dollars over the last couple of
decades exploring oil and gas that haven't found any. So
you know, we are running out of those things.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
So the so the oil and gas band, the oil
and gas band was not a philosophical anti drilling or
anti you know, using resources. It was in response to
a dwindling supply. Is that right?
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Well, no, no, I mean there's a principled decision here,
which is that we need to transition away from fossil fuels.
But even that, those who don't believe we should transition
away from fossil fuels have to accept the reality that
billions of dollars have been spent looking for them and
they haven't found any.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
So what is what's energy and dependence in your mind?
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Renewable energy. We have an abundant supply of renewable energy.
There are a range of options that New Zealand could
be pursuing that would give us a much greater degree
of energy and dependence without tying ourselves to the price
of important liquefied natural gas, which is only going up
in price next week.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
The government's going to start a second well I said,
they calling it a second pilot. I'm not quite sure.
I would have thought the first one would have been
a pilot. But there's going to be a second boot
camp for young offenders. How willing are you to give that?
Give it a chance to see if it works well?
Speaker 3 (05:13):
The first one was an abject failure. Most of those
that's went on and reoffended, doesn't actually reduce offending, didn't
have any material positive impact. So all of the evidence
suggests that they don't work.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
So you're opposed to the second one, Well.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
They don't work, so that they get the money on
things that work.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
So what will you do differently? What will work.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
Well? The circuit Breaker program which the government have also
put money into, which was set up under Labor and
the government the current government has said is working very well.
Is a much better alternative. That means you leave those
kids in place, but you wrap a whole of the
support around them so that they get out of trouble.
But that circuit breaker program is actually working very well.
Even the current.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Government give me can you can you give me? Can
you give me a result which shows that.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
Well, if if you look at the results from when
we started the program. We started with the kids who
are involved in a raiding and immediately seventy five percent
of the kids involved in ram raiding stopped reoffending. In
the boot camp phase you know, pilot program, I think
about eighty percent of the kids went on to reoffend.
So you know which program do you want to put
your money into? The one that stops kids reoffending or
the one that has kids reoffending at the same rate.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
How is it do you think that in THESOS survey
results which came out, how is it that labor is
given the tick for the party most likely to address
the cost of living or address cost of living issues
when you've pretty much come out with no policy. How
does that take up?
Speaker 3 (06:41):
People can see that the current government are making it
so much worse. So a lot of the increasing costs
that families are facing they've been imposed by this government.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
So it's dissatisfaction with the government, not an endorsement of labor.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Well, they can also see that we've got some policies,
some of the policies that we have a now it's
particularly things like pre doctors' visits are actually focused on
the cost of living and will make like the easiest
than New Yalther family.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
See, I never hear people say when they talk about
the cost of I never heard them say, or do
you know what they asked me to pay when I
went to the doctor? They talk about when they guard
the supermarket, they talk about their electricity bills, they talk
about what it costs to do all manner of things.
I actually have never heard people complain about the cost
of a GP. They might talk about the difficulty getting
an appointment, But do you think that that one policy
(07:27):
has put labor ahead in the cost of living In
this survey, you've.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Obviously got some very healthy friends. John, so well done.
But you know from the people who I've been talking
to who have been going to the doctor, they are
concerned about the cost A member of my own family
ended up having to go to the to the doctor
last weekend because he cut his arm, and that cost
one hundred I think it was about one hundred and
twenty bucks to get addressing put on the wound, and
(07:54):
that was with ACC. If he hadn't been eligible for ACC,
it would have been two hundred and forty bucks. And
if he hadn't been as a local GP practice, there
would have been over three hundred bucks just to get
a bloody wound. Addressing this, the cost of going to
the doctor is a real issue for.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
People, and therefore a policy which provides free visits for everyone,
irrespective of their financial position, as the way to go.
That's the way to address cost of living.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
It's ultimately going to save the government money because I'd
rather people would to see their doctor than ended up
in a hospital emergency department, which costs us of a
lot more.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
I was writing more evidence this morning that we are
just failing kids in this country, still failing kids time
and time and time again. What's your position on this
petition that was delivered to Parliament this week calling for
the establishment of a Commissioner for Animals.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Those are very different issues that you've just put together there, John.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
The point I'm making. The point I'm making is that
kids are being failed. But there are some people who
think we need a Commissioner for animals. What's your position
on it.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
It's not something that I've looked at the Ministry for
Primary Industry to have a responsibility around animal welfare. It
is an important responsibility. I mean, we have a lot
of animals in New Zealand where are farming nations. Animal
welfare does matter, but the Ministry for Primary Industries are
the body who already deal with that at the moment.
If there's a need to tighten animal welfare regulations, certainly
open to that. We shouldn't tolerate animal cruelty, but I
(09:23):
wouldn't equate it. I wouldn't put it on the same
level of issues around children's welfare.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
So you don't think we need a Commissioner for animals.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Well, I'm to be convinced of that. I haven't actually
seen that petition. But Ministry for Primary Industries are the
current government department responsible for animal welfare, and you know
that's where we should focus our energies.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
All right, you find it. Spokesperson Barbara Edmonds Cave an
interview to the New Zealand Herald and one of the
things she talked about in there it was published yesterday.
One of the regrets is the way in which the
co governance issue took over the Three Waters debate in
the Three Waters policy, and it came across that Labor
regrets its commitment to co governance. Where do you stand
(10:06):
and the selection on co governance.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Well, we're not opposed to co governance. There are co
governance arrangements in place at the moment that are working
very well. I mean, if you look at the co
governance arrangements in Canterbury, there were some following the Canterbury earthquakes,
the Lake Elsmere co governance stuff. The Otacado Avon River
Corridor is a subject to a co governance arrangement. So
there are co governance arrangements and well in place now
(10:31):
that are working very well. I think what Barbara was reflecting,
and it's one that I've also reflected on this that
the Three Waters debate started to became dominated by a
debate about co governance rather than about the most effective
way of delivering water infrastructure. And I think what people
can see now is that you know, water infrastructures are mess,
and well.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Let's not get I think we'd all agree on that.
But in terms of co governance going into the next election,
will maybe be applying or interested in co governance arrangements
going forward.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Well, we're certainly not going to stop the ones place
now government and negotiating, but new ones.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Let's say you do a whole lot of water reforms.
Would co governance been part of the picture.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Again, Well, if you look at things like treaty settlements,
there are co governance arrangements in them already, and there
are a lot of treaty settlements under negotiation at the moment.
Now we're not subject to those negotiations, but they do
include issues around water. Those treaty settlements often deal with
issues around water. Our co governance arrangements have been entered
into by previous national governments and I'm not going to
(11:34):
say that if those are things that they're currently negotiating,
that will pull the pin on those negotiations.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
So do you share Barbara edmonds regret about co governments?
Speaker 3 (11:43):
I share Barbara Edmons regret that our co governance became
the dominant feature of the debate around fixing up our
water infrastructure. Yes, absolutely, but I'm not necessarily sure that
it's something that we were fully responsible for.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
All Right, we'll catch up in a fortnight. Thanks Chris
Geer John all Right.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
For more from Canterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news Talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk Z'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
So we're going to catch up with opposition and labor.
There the Chris Spkins, Chris Koda. John, I've been reading
what Phil Goff said to say. Do you agree that
New Zealand has lost its foreign affairs Mojo?
Speaker 3 (00:25):
It's similar seem to have lost our independent streak that's
been a feature of our foreign policy for quite a
long time, and our current governments does seem to be
struggling to identify where we stand on a bunch of issues.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Would would you say that we're at the complete opposite
from what we were in the eighties when we told
the States what to do with their nuclear ships.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Well, it's hard to know. I mean, the government sort
of equivocate so much and it's very hard to get
out of them exactly where they stand on this. So
we were pretty you know, pretty clear in the nineteen
eighties where we stood on nuclear free We were pretty
clear in the early two thousands where we stood on
the Iraq War, on issues around Iran, on issues around
Donald Trump's tariffs. You know, on a range of different issues.
(01:06):
It's difficult to actually know what the government's view is.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
So what's yours. Let's get it, get it on paper, officially.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Unequivocally opposed to Donald Trump's tariffs and.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Run, right, You're opposed to run. So is that some
sort of acceptance of the regime in Iran?
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Absolutely not a so horrific regime in Iran, But any
action around that needs to be legal, So it needs
to be in adherence with international law. This is not
and it needs to. Actually, if you're talking about regime change,
you need to have a plan to affect that. Bombing
Iran without a plan to actually follow through is pretty reckless.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
How would international law enable what Israel and the US
set out to do?
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Well, it won't because what they're doing is illegal.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Well, so therefore, so therefore there's no other way of
getting rid of the regime, is there?
Speaker 3 (02:05):
But what they're doing now is not necessarily going to
get rid of the regime.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
But okay, I'll put.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
It, I'll put it.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I'll put it differently. I mean we're doucing on the
head of a pin here. I mean international law is
the is the gatekeeper, and would prevent action being taken
that may contribute towards the regime being given the boot.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Well, there's certainly no assurance that the regime is going
to be given the boot.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Now, how would international law make sure we did a
better job of getting rid of them or trying to
get rid of them? It was it wouldn't. I just wouldn't.
It would get in the way time and time again,
wouldn't it.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
But is that the US is objective? Is the U
s objective regime change? Or is it to stop them
getting nuclear weapons? Of it's to stop them getting nuclear weapons.
There's certainly a way of preventing that. There was previously arrangement,
arrangement in place that was stopping I aren't getting nuclear weapons,
and Donald Trump was the one that scrapped it in
the first place.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
See, there's been no shortage of people this morning saying
that we need to be wearing I mean Wayne Matt
was also in the news today saying the same that
we need to be mindful of Donald Trump and not
poke the beer. I mean, what's your attitude towards that.
Do you endorse running scared of Donald Trump?
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Absolutely not. I think the Zeland should be three B
firm in its independence and we should say what we
think is a.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Country in relation to what's going on in the Middle East.
I said that you're saying that it shows how wrong
the government's plan to import liquefied natural gases and that
we should be trying to be more energy independent. Where
does oil and gas fit into that.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
In what regard? I mean, we're running out of gas
and we're running out of oil.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Well, I would have thought that exploration, enabling exploration might
contribute towards our energy independence.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
We've spent billions of dollars over the last couple of
decades exploring oil and gas that haven't found any. So
you know, we are running out of those things.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
So the so the oil and gas band, the oil
and gas band was not a philosophical anti drilling or
anti you know, using resources. It was in response to
a dwindling supply. Is that right?
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Well, no, no, I mean there's a principled decision here,
which is that we need to transition away from fossil fuels.
But even that, those who don't believe we should transition
away from fossil fuels have to accept the reality that
billions of dollars have been spent looking for them and
they haven't found any.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
So what is what's energy and dependence in your mind?
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Renewable energy. We have an abundant supply of renewable energy.
There are a range of options that New Zealand could
be pursuing that would give us a much greater degree
of energy and dependence without tying ourselves to the price
of important liquefied natural gas, which is only going up
in price next week.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
The government's going to start a second well I said,
they calling it a second pilot. I'm not quite sure.
I would have thought the first one would have been
a pilot. But there's going to be a second boot
camp for young offenders. How willing are you to give that?
Give it a chance to see if it works well?
Speaker 3 (05:13):
The first one was an abject failure. Most of those
that's went on and reoffended, doesn't actually reduce offending, didn't
have any material positive impact. So all of the evidence
suggests that they don't work.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
So you're opposed to the second one, Well.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
They don't work, so that they get the money on
things that work.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
So what will you do differently? What will work.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
Well? The circuit Breaker program which the government have also
put money into, which was set up under Labor and
the government the current government has said is working very well.
Is a much better alternative. That means you leave those
kids in place, but you wrap a whole of the
support around them so that they get out of trouble.
But that circuit breaker program is actually working very well.
Even the current.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Government give me can you can you give me? Can
you give me a result which shows that.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
Well, if if you look at the results from when
we started the program. We started with the kids who
are involved in a raiding and immediately seventy five percent
of the kids involved in ram raiding stopped reoffending. In
the boot camp phase you know, pilot program, I think
about eighty percent of the kids went on to reoffend.
So you know which program do you want to put
your money into? The one that stops kids reoffending or
the one that has kids reoffending at the same rate.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
How is it do you think that in THESOS survey
results which came out, how is it that labor is
given the tick for the party most likely to address
the cost of living or address cost of living issues
when you've pretty much come out with no policy. How
does that take up?
Speaker 3 (06:41):
People can see that the current government are making it
so much worse. So a lot of the increasing costs
that families are facing they've been imposed by this government.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
So it's dissatisfaction with the government, not an endorsement of labor.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Well, they can also see that we've got some policies,
some of the policies that we have a now it's
particularly things like pre doctors' visits are actually focused on
the cost of living and will make like the easiest
than New Yalther family.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
See, I never hear people say when they talk about
the cost of I never heard them say, or do
you know what they asked me to pay when I
went to the doctor? They talk about when they guard
the supermarket, they talk about their electricity bills, they talk
about what it costs to do all manner of things.
I actually have never heard people complain about the cost
of a GP. They might talk about the difficulty getting
an appointment, But do you think that that one policy
(07:27):
has put labor ahead in the cost of living In
this survey, you've.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Obviously got some very healthy friends. John, so well done.
But you know from the people who I've been talking
to who have been going to the doctor, they are
concerned about the cost A member of my own family
ended up having to go to the to the doctor
last weekend because he cut his arm, and that cost
one hundred I think it was about one hundred and
twenty bucks to get addressing put on the wound, and
(07:54):
that was with ACC. If he hadn't been eligible for ACC,
it would have been two hundred and forty bucks. And
if he hadn't been as a local GP practice, there
would have been over three hundred bucks just to get
a bloody wound. Addressing this, the cost of going to
the doctor is a real issue for.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
People, and therefore a policy which provides free visits for everyone,
irrespective of their financial position, as the way to go.
That's the way to address cost of living.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
It's ultimately going to save the government money because I'd
rather people would to see their doctor than ended up
in a hospital emergency department, which costs us of a
lot more.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
I was writing more evidence this morning that we are
just failing kids in this country, still failing kids time
and time and time again. What's your position on this
petition that was delivered to Parliament this week calling for
the establishment of a Commissioner for Animals.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Those are very different issues that you've just put together there, John.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
The point I'm making. The point I'm making is that
kids are being failed. But there are some people who
think we need a Commissioner for animals. What's your position
on it.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
It's not something that I've looked at the Ministry for
Primary Industry to have a responsibility around animal welfare. It
is an important responsibility. I mean, we have a lot
of animals in New Zealand where are farming nations. Animal
welfare does matter, but the Ministry for Primary Industries are
the body who already deal with that at the moment.
If there's a need to tighten animal welfare regulations, certainly
open to that. We shouldn't tolerate animal cruelty, but I
(09:23):
wouldn't equate it. I wouldn't put it on the same
level of issues around children's welfare.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
So you don't think we need a Commissioner for animals.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Well, I'm to be convinced of that. I haven't actually
seen that petition. But Ministry for Primary Industries are the
current government department responsible for animal welfare, and you know
that's where we should focus our energies.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
All right, you find it. Spokesperson Barbara Edmonds Cave an
interview to the New Zealand Herald and one of the
things she talked about in there it was published yesterday.
One of the regrets is the way in which the
co governance issue took over the Three Waters debate in
the Three Waters policy, and it came across that Labor
regrets its commitment to co governance. Where do you stand
(10:06):
and the selection on co governance.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Well, we're not opposed to co governance. There are co
governance arrangements in place at the moment that are working
very well. I mean, if you look at the co
governance arrangements in Canterbury, there were some following the Canterbury earthquakes,
the Lake Elsmere co governance stuff. The Otacado Avon River
Corridor is a subject to a co governance arrangement. So
there are co governance arrangements and well in place now
(10:31):
that are working very well. I think what Barbara was reflecting,
and it's one that I've also reflected on this that
the Three Waters debate started to became dominated by a
debate about co governance rather than about the most effective
way of delivering water infrastructure. And I think what people
can see now is that you know, water infrastructures are mess,
and well.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Let's not get I think we'd all agree on that.
But in terms of co governance going into the next election,
will maybe be applying or interested in co governance arrangements
going forward.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Well, we're certainly not going to stop the ones place
now government and negotiating, but new ones.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Let's say you do a whole lot of water reforms.
Would co governance been part of the picture.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Again, Well, if you look at things like treaty settlements,
there are co governance arrangements in them already, and there
are a lot of treaty settlements under negotiation at the moment.
Now we're not subject to those negotiations, but they do
include issues around water. Those treaty settlements often deal with
issues around water. Our co governance arrangements have been entered
into by previous national governments and I'm not going to
(11:34):
say that if those are things that they're currently negotiating,
that will pull the pin on those negotiations.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
So do you share Barbara edmonds regret about co governments?
Speaker 3 (11:43):
I share Barbara Edmons regret that our co governance became
the dominant feature of the debate around fixing up our
water infrastructure. Yes, absolutely, but I'm not necessarily sure that
it's something that we were fully responsible for.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
All Right, we'll catch up in a fortnight. Thanks Chris
Geer John all Right.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
For more from Canterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news Talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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!