September 14, 2025 • 10 mins
Cabinet discussions are continuing over whether New Zealand will recognise the State of Palestine.
A number of countries have said they'll recognise Palestine next week at a UN meeting.
Chris Luxon says recognition is a complex issue and that there's a range of views to consider, and the Government will make its own decision on whether recognition is appropriate.
The Prime Minister told Mike Hosking an announcement on the matter, won't be made today.
He says the Government has always said it's a matter of "when not if" - Foreign Minister Winston Peters will have more to say on the matter in the coming weeks.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Monday morning, Prime Minister Christopher Luxan is back in the
country and is with us.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Good morning, Good morning, Mike. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
I don't know if it's the change in media or
the amount of coverage that's done, but your Pacific Islands
for them, didn't seem to get a lot of coverage
last week. For you know, you're out of the country
for several days. So just just a quick one. Was
China a major and did anything material apart from that happen.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Look, I mean what we're trying to do with the
Pacific Islands is about eighteen countries and that grouping.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
We want to make.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Sure that there's what's called Pacific regionalism, that the Pacific
countries deal with their challenges and opportunities as a group.
Small countries are developing countries. The more they can come
together and project a Pacific Island's viewpoint into the world.
No different from what we see in uscr and, which
is the Southeast Asian economies. But for US, you know,
we had good conversations for example, on transnational organized crime.
(00:49):
You know huge if you think about tongsm, Fiji, Australia
and New Zealand being really impacted by global meth trade,
particularly with Mexican cartels and so in North American organized crime.
And so you know, those are the kind of conversations
we got into, which is.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
What sort of card were you driven around? Because I
read last week that the Chinese had given them a
lot of cars, and Australia, upon seeing the Chinese had
given them a lot of cars, gave them even more cars.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Oh really, it was a great wall. It was a
great wall China, Chinese.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
You realize you were butter being like a haal or
something that well, so you were buked definitely.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
And that the couple of random questions acclaim last week
that we're a couple of weeks away from signing an
FTA with India, true or not.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
I think it will be longer than that. We've said
we'll do it in this term. We've got our third
round of in person negotiations going down this week so
that the Indian team are here. We're making progress. But
as I've said, we'll try, and you know, the Indians
are hard negotiators and so yes, their trade minister has
has artic letters all those comments as well.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
That's great. You know the fact that they've got a
tension engaged.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Well, it's just I mean, we've actually both promised to
Modi and I and our trade ministers you know, talk
very positively and our visit about we want to do
this deal. We want to make it happen and it
requires attention. And the fact that the Indians are giving
us attention when they've got everyone coming to their door
wanting to do an FTA is a really good thing.
So look, it'll take, It'll take as long as it
needs to take, but we're making progress. But you know,
(02:21):
we've got a third round. As I said in person this.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Week, Audrey Young seems to sueduce Palestine's on the agenda
today at cabinet.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Is it well again, we've we've said we've got conversations
going on around the issue, but it's a pretty complex issue.
It's important that we form our own view on it.
You know, in New Zealand you've seen protests over the weekend.
There's a range of views about whether you recognition is
appropriate or not appropriate. We've always said when, not if,
but we will make our own distises.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
It's not happening today.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
In other word, no when some will have more to
say about that in the coming weeks.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Okay, do you know, speaking of protests, do you know
the rule? Like literally, who decides in this country to
close the bridge when people want to walk across it
in protest?
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Yeah? Look, I think that's an n ZTA decision, and.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Yeah it is. But do you know the person in
there and why.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Allowed to do that? Don't But why are they allowed
to do that? Well? I don't know, but that's a decision.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
You mean, are you're the prime minister of this country.
Don't you want to know? I mean, as a person
apart from anything it was in Auckland, how is it
that somebody goes, oh ye, yeah, well just close a bridge.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Yeah, I mean, we'll a huge inconvenience to people right
trying to get their kids around Saturday sport or often
what they're trying to do with their partners over the
weekend and their downtime. So it's a massive inconvenience of
you know. My personal view is that NZCA should think
really deeply.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
About those are the rules.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
There was a place where.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Protests happened, and as it turned out, I think the
bridge was shut down because of wind and as a result,
people protested in the city here and that was fine.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Should there be something done about that? But if we
can't trust the nz TA and the police to make
sensible decisions so the rest of the world can actually
get about their business, should you step and go here
are some rules that you need to adhere to.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Yeah, we can have a look at it, but I
think you know, there's enough other places that people can protest,
and we want people to be able to feel free
to do so.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Now they're completely we want there in our society.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
But you know, on this particular issue, as you know,
there's deep seated feelings on all sites.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Yes, there is farna aura. This was a tapunakakri. This
was a classic Friday story. So that investigation into the
funding and whether it was across the line or not
came back with something I couldn't quite understand. It might
have burned, it might not have been. Was the scope
in the investigation too wide? So in other words, what
you're saying is far or are therefore the the betterment
(04:28):
of Maori? Therefore you can basically spend your money on
whatever you want.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Now, what happened here was there were some pretty serious allegations.
TPK undertook a review. That review came back and said, look,
there wasn't evidence of any wrongdoing. Having said that there was,
there was opportunities for us to do much better than
we had historically been doing. There's three things that have
been going on. It wouldn't you know, like it wouldn't
surprise you. We get to government and labor were very
(04:52):
focused on how much money they spend rather than the
outcomes they deliver. So there's not a lot of oversight
around outcomes. So we're making sure that everything's in contracts
actually with clauses now that are focused on outcomes managing
perceived or real conflicts of interest. The second thing was
that none of those providers, the forefunnel or providers have
been retended in twelve years. That just from a commercial
(05:13):
practice point of view, that's not good. So we've retended
and none of the current providers have come through that retendering.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
And have they not come through it because they weren't
playing the game.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
According to about value for money and saying we want
to buy these outcomes and we're going to work with
these organizations and we're going to pay you some money
to deliver this outcome because that's all I'm interested in,
this outcome. So how we get them. I'm less hung
up on. But when we're going to spend government money
and social services, it's not surprising to you that you'd
imagine it's been pretty loose.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
And so you would argue this reporter's retrospective of what
was going on as opposed to what is going on
or not.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Well, I think my point is I still think there's
a lot more that government needs to do infinitely better
around the procurement either of social services or procurement in general. Right,
And so one of those things is you should have
regular retendering processes for long term contracts. You should make
sure that the contracts that you sign with them actually
have clauses in those contracts, like a good commercial one
about delivery, about outcomes. And the third thing is, you know,
(06:10):
this threw up quite a good question, which I know
that you know Brian Roach will look at which is
around you know, what is the appropriate use of surpluses organizations?
And let's get some real clear.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
I ended up in court Tamma Herey sued me for
this exact thing, and I maintained to this day I
was right, despite the fact we lost the court case.
But that's a story for another day. What happens is
they get money and they have some money left over.
They then put the money in the bank and they
collect the interest. And no one could in this particular
report answer that question. No, so one of the interests
(06:42):
is that still part of it or one of.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
The That's what I've asked the PC is going to
look at in the Parliamentary's Service Commissioner because that needs
really clear guidance, you know as to those Now let's
be clear. I mean we contract for a bunch of things.
You might buy Air New Zealand tickets as a government,
you know, for example, Air New Zealand will make a
profit off the.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Of that, as you would reasonably expect.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Right, we're buying services and so you know as to
but exactly in this space, what we just wanted some
really clear guidelines and guidance around how surpluses are to
be used or not to be used.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Right, So, and Bribri will if they weren't attend it
for five million dollars and I do it for three million,
seven hundred thousand dollars, do I get to pocket the rest?
And that's just on you because we agreed to a
price or not. That's the thing I want clarity on.
That's what I've asked, Well, what's your view though, Well, I.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Mean we want to make well, there'll be an organization,
as I said, of commercial or nonprofit. You know, they
if they can deliver value for money within the budget
that we've been prepared to pay for in order to
secure the outcomes, they deliver the outcomes. That's what I'm
interested in now as to but how much is appropriate
exactly what it can or can't be used for. I
(07:48):
think some definition around that would be very helpful. So
one is new contracts, new providers, and three someome advice
on the on surpluses.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
I'm reading about fast track, which isn't fast track just
three projects of in principal decisions after eight months. Is
that a fast track or is that a slow track? No?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I think you think.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
You know, there's some tweaks that we're going to need
to do to it, and you know, as part of
Nicholas Supermarket's work, there's also sort of an accompanying pit
around the bits that we've you know, Shane Jones and
Chris Bishop have learned through engaging on the fast Track
as to what we need to do differently or better
to speed that up.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
What are they going to do because I mean there's
one hundred and forty nine in the queue that have
been given the tick to be a fight.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Some of those haven't actually, you know, so we put
one hundred and forty nine into the legislation, they still
have to put their project into the process and some
haven't haven't done that yet, so there's still it's not
like a one hundred and forty nine. We're there from
day one. They were ones that we said, look, we'd
really like these guys to submit for a number of reasons.
They may not be ready, they may not have the fight.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
You still only ticked one off, which was your much
trumpet at Auckland. Yeah, which is good, which is good
for one's good. How about eight?
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Yeah, well we said we've got another eight that will
probably emerge.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Before Christmas, which is so another eight, so we'll have
nine before Christmas. So you're still saying fast track is
far t Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Well it's better than what we've been doing. I mean,
when you know, my advisors would say to me that
that port decision out of Auckland would have taken five
years under the old RMA. It took six months. Under
fast track. Your point's a fair one, which is that
you know, having put this thing together, we shouldn't be
so arrogant to say it's a set and forget process.
If we think that there are irritants and frustrations and
impediments that actually should be removed, let's go and remove them.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Okay, So there will be some some.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
More changes, just real quick. The events thing you made yesterday.
There's a lot of feedback this morning, and we had
Britt Eckles on what is it apart from just a
subsidy to get somebody like Taylor Swift here, because even
Eckles says it's just she'll end up with the dough.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Now, look, I think there's sort of three things going on.
One is on the infrastructure side. I think actually Aukind's
going to come together pretty well. You look at the airport,
you look at the transport links, you start to look
at the convention center. I think, you know, if we
could liberate Mount eden Eden Park to sort of get
more stuff happening there, I think that would all be
quite good stuff. We put the money together because we
benchmarked ourselves against Queensland. Brisbanees is a similar size city
(09:57):
to Auckland, and we know that we want to be
competitive and what we did fifteen years ago isn't probably
relevant to today. And I also think, quite frankly, as
you and I've talked before, I think there's a lot
of some work that we can do looking at once
you get these events coming here. If you want to
get a big NRL event here, for example, and you
might have to deal with TV rights, or you might
have to deal with a different on a Sunday or
(10:19):
whatever it is, there's a lot of madness going on
across some of the constraints that the venues are actually
having to work to as well. So if we can
get rid of some of that stuff and make it
easier for things to happen, that'd be a good thing.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Good stuff good. See Christopher Luxm for more from the
Mic Asking Breakfast. Listen live to news talks it'd be
from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Monday morning, Prime Minister Christopher Luxan is back in the
country and is with us.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Good morning, Good morning, Mike. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
I don't know if it's the change in media or
the amount of coverage that's done, but your Pacific Islands
for them, didn't seem to get a lot of coverage
last week. For you know, you're out of the country
for several days. So just just a quick one. Was
China a major and did anything material apart from that happen.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Look, I mean what we're trying to do with the
Pacific Islands is about eighteen countries and that grouping.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
We want to make.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Sure that there's what's called Pacific regionalism, that the Pacific
countries deal with their challenges and opportunities as a group.
Small countries are developing countries. The more they can come
together and project a Pacific Island's viewpoint into the world.
No different from what we see in uscr and, which
is the Southeast Asian economies. But for US, you know,
we had good conversations for example, on transnational organized crime.
(00:49):
You know huge if you think about tongsm, Fiji, Australia
and New Zealand being really impacted by global meth trade,
particularly with Mexican cartels and so in North American organized crime.
And so you know, those are the kind of conversations
we got into, which is.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
What sort of card were you driven around? Because I
read last week that the Chinese had given them a
lot of cars, and Australia, upon seeing the Chinese had
given them a lot of cars, gave them even more cars.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Oh really, it was a great wall. It was a
great wall China, Chinese.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
You realize you were butter being like a haal or
something that well, so you were buked definitely.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
And that the couple of random questions acclaim last week
that we're a couple of weeks away from signing an
FTA with India, true or not.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
I think it will be longer than that. We've said
we'll do it in this term. We've got our third
round of in person negotiations going down this week so
that the Indian team are here. We're making progress. But
as I've said, we'll try, and you know, the Indians
are hard negotiators and so yes, their trade minister has
has artic letters all those comments as well.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
That's great. You know the fact that they've got a
tension engaged.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Well, it's just I mean, we've actually both promised to
Modi and I and our trade ministers you know, talk
very positively and our visit about we want to do
this deal. We want to make it happen and it
requires attention. And the fact that the Indians are giving
us attention when they've got everyone coming to their door
wanting to do an FTA is a really good thing.
So look, it'll take, It'll take as long as it
needs to take, but we're making progress. But you know,
(02:21):
we've got a third round. As I said in person this.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Week, Audrey Young seems to sueduce Palestine's on the agenda
today at cabinet.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Is it well again, we've we've said we've got conversations
going on around the issue, but it's a pretty complex issue.
It's important that we form our own view on it.
You know, in New Zealand you've seen protests over the weekend.
There's a range of views about whether you recognition is
appropriate or not appropriate. We've always said when, not if,
but we will make our own distises.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
It's not happening today.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
In other word, no when some will have more to
say about that in the coming weeks.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Okay, do you know, speaking of protests, do you know
the rule? Like literally, who decides in this country to
close the bridge when people want to walk across it
in protest?
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Yeah? Look, I think that's an n ZTA decision, and.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Yeah it is. But do you know the person in
there and why.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Allowed to do that? Don't But why are they allowed
to do that? Well? I don't know, but that's a decision.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
You mean, are you're the prime minister of this country.
Don't you want to know? I mean, as a person
apart from anything it was in Auckland, how is it
that somebody goes, oh ye, yeah, well just close a bridge.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Yeah, I mean, we'll a huge inconvenience to people right
trying to get their kids around Saturday sport or often
what they're trying to do with their partners over the
weekend and their downtime. So it's a massive inconvenience of
you know. My personal view is that NZCA should think
really deeply.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
About those are the rules.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
There was a place where.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Protests happened, and as it turned out, I think the
bridge was shut down because of wind and as a result,
people protested in the city here and that was fine.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Should there be something done about that? But if we
can't trust the nz TA and the police to make
sensible decisions so the rest of the world can actually
get about their business, should you step and go here
are some rules that you need to adhere to.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Yeah, we can have a look at it, but I
think you know, there's enough other places that people can protest,
and we want people to be able to feel free
to do so.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Now they're completely we want there in our society.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
But you know, on this particular issue, as you know,
there's deep seated feelings on all sites.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Yes, there is farna aura. This was a tapunakakri. This
was a classic Friday story. So that investigation into the
funding and whether it was across the line or not
came back with something I couldn't quite understand. It might
have burned, it might not have been. Was the scope
in the investigation too wide? So in other words, what
you're saying is far or are therefore the the betterment
(04:28):
of Maori? Therefore you can basically spend your money on
whatever you want.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Now, what happened here was there were some pretty serious allegations.
TPK undertook a review. That review came back and said, look,
there wasn't evidence of any wrongdoing. Having said that there was,
there was opportunities for us to do much better than
we had historically been doing. There's three things that have
been going on. It wouldn't you know, like it wouldn't
surprise you. We get to government and labor were very
(04:52):
focused on how much money they spend rather than the
outcomes they deliver. So there's not a lot of oversight
around outcomes. So we're making sure that everything's in contracts
actually with clauses now that are focused on outcomes managing
perceived or real conflicts of interest. The second thing was
that none of those providers, the forefunnel or providers have
been retended in twelve years. That just from a commercial
(05:13):
practice point of view, that's not good. So we've retended
and none of the current providers have come through that retendering.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
And have they not come through it because they weren't
playing the game.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
According to about value for money and saying we want
to buy these outcomes and we're going to work with
these organizations and we're going to pay you some money
to deliver this outcome because that's all I'm interested in,
this outcome. So how we get them. I'm less hung
up on. But when we're going to spend government money
and social services, it's not surprising to you that you'd
imagine it's been pretty loose.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
And so you would argue this reporter's retrospective of what
was going on as opposed to what is going on
or not.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Well, I think my point is I still think there's
a lot more that government needs to do infinitely better
around the procurement either of social services or procurement in general. Right,
And so one of those things is you should have
regular retendering processes for long term contracts. You should make
sure that the contracts that you sign with them actually
have clauses in those contracts, like a good commercial one
about delivery, about outcomes. And the third thing is, you know,
(06:10):
this threw up quite a good question, which I know
that you know Brian Roach will look at which is
around you know, what is the appropriate use of surpluses organizations?
And let's get some real clear.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
I ended up in court Tamma Herey sued me for
this exact thing, and I maintained to this day I
was right, despite the fact we lost the court case.
But that's a story for another day. What happens is
they get money and they have some money left over.
They then put the money in the bank and they
collect the interest. And no one could in this particular
report answer that question. No, so one of the interests
(06:42):
is that still part of it or one of.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
The That's what I've asked the PC is going to
look at in the Parliamentary's Service Commissioner because that needs
really clear guidance, you know as to those Now let's
be clear. I mean we contract for a bunch of things.
You might buy Air New Zealand tickets as a government,
you know, for example, Air New Zealand will make a
profit off the.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Of that, as you would reasonably expect.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Right, we're buying services and so you know as to
but exactly in this space, what we just wanted some
really clear guidelines and guidance around how surpluses are to
be used or not to be used.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Right, So, and Bribri will if they weren't attend it
for five million dollars and I do it for three million,
seven hundred thousand dollars, do I get to pocket the rest?
And that's just on you because we agreed to a
price or not. That's the thing I want clarity on.
That's what I've asked, Well, what's your view though, Well, I.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Mean we want to make well, there'll be an organization,
as I said, of commercial or nonprofit. You know, they
if they can deliver value for money within the budget
that we've been prepared to pay for in order to
secure the outcomes, they deliver the outcomes. That's what I'm
interested in now as to but how much is appropriate
exactly what it can or can't be used for. I
(07:48):
think some definition around that would be very helpful. So
one is new contracts, new providers, and three someome advice
on the on surpluses.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
I'm reading about fast track, which isn't fast track just
three projects of in principal decisions after eight months. Is
that a fast track or is that a slow track? No?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I think you think.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
You know, there's some tweaks that we're going to need
to do to it, and you know, as part of
Nicholas Supermarket's work, there's also sort of an accompanying pit
around the bits that we've you know, Shane Jones and
Chris Bishop have learned through engaging on the fast Track
as to what we need to do differently or better
to speed that up.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
What are they going to do because I mean there's
one hundred and forty nine in the queue that have
been given the tick to be a fight.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Some of those haven't actually, you know, so we put
one hundred and forty nine into the legislation, they still
have to put their project into the process and some
haven't haven't done that yet, so there's still it's not
like a one hundred and forty nine. We're there from
day one. They were ones that we said, look, we'd
really like these guys to submit for a number of reasons.
They may not be ready, they may not have the fight.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
You still only ticked one off, which was your much
trumpet at Auckland. Yeah, which is good, which is good
for one's good. How about eight?
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Yeah, well we said we've got another eight that will
probably emerge.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Before Christmas, which is so another eight, so we'll have
nine before Christmas. So you're still saying fast track is
far t Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Well it's better than what we've been doing. I mean,
when you know, my advisors would say to me that
that port decision out of Auckland would have taken five
years under the old RMA. It took six months. Under
fast track. Your point's a fair one, which is that
you know, having put this thing together, we shouldn't be
so arrogant to say it's a set and forget process.
If we think that there are irritants and frustrations and
impediments that actually should be removed, let's go and remove them.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Okay, So there will be some some.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
More changes, just real quick. The events thing you made yesterday.
There's a lot of feedback this morning, and we had
Britt Eckles on what is it apart from just a
subsidy to get somebody like Taylor Swift here, because even
Eckles says it's just she'll end up with the dough.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Now, look, I think there's sort of three things going on.
One is on the infrastructure side. I think actually Aukind's
going to come together pretty well. You look at the airport,
you look at the transport links, you start to look
at the convention center. I think, you know, if we
could liberate Mount eden Eden Park to sort of get
more stuff happening there, I think that would all be
quite good stuff. We put the money together because we
benchmarked ourselves against Queensland. Brisbanees is a similar size city
(09:57):
to Auckland, and we know that we want to be
competitive and what we did fifteen years ago isn't probably
relevant to today. And I also think, quite frankly, as
you and I've talked before, I think there's a lot
of some work that we can do looking at once
you get these events coming here. If you want to
get a big NRL event here, for example, and you
might have to deal with TV rights, or you might
have to deal with a different on a Sunday or
(10:19):
whatever it is, there's a lot of madness going on
across some of the constraints that the venues are actually
having to work to as well. So if we can
get rid of some of that stuff and make it
easier for things to happen, that'd be a good thing.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Good stuff good. See Christopher Luxm for more from the
Mic Asking Breakfast. Listen live to news talks it'd be
from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.