The building has sat empty, with blackened walls and damaged signage, since May 2023.RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
A Wellington developer has bought Loafers Lodge, the burnt-out boarding house in which five people died more than two years ago.
The building has sat empty, with blackened walls and damaged signage, since the fire in May 2023.
In a statement, Primeproperty Group said it had signed a conditional contract to purchase the property in late 2025.
“Settlement has not yet taken place, and Primeproperty has not taken possession of the site. Settlement is currently scheduled for later this year.”
It said at this stage it was undertaking “preliminary investigations and technical studies to understand the site and assess potential development options”.
No decisions had been made regarding its future, and no applications for resource consent had yet been lodged.
It would not disclose the purchase price as it was “commercially sensitive”.
Four others, who were involved with the management and operation of the building, have been charged with manslaughter, with police alleging they were responsible for aspects of the building’s fire safety.
Primeproperty Group said it was unable to comment on court proceedings or their implications for the transaction.
Wellington City Missioner Murray Edridge has been calling for something to be done with the building for the past two and a half years.
“I was delighted to hear that news today, because it means that hopefully something will finally be done about the Loafers Lodge building,” he told RNZ.
It was a source of trauma for those affected by the fire, he said, many of whom remained connected to the City Mission.
“We know every day as they walk past, drive past, catch the bus past the Loafers Lodge building, [it’s] such a traumatic reminder of what happened two and a half years ago.”
Demolition would be the preferable option, he said, but if it was going to be refurbished, he hoped they would “just get on and do it”.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
The deployment of a New Zealand Defence Force liaison officer to Israel has been extended by an additional three months, Defence Minister Judith Collins says.
“The situation in Gaza continues to evolve as implementation of the peace plan progresses,” she says.
“This deployment continues to make a critical contribution to our understanding of what is a dynamic and complex operating environment in and around Gaza.
“This extension is to ensure that the NZDF liaison officer can continue to improve our understanding of what is happening on the ground toinform any future decisions regarding New Zealand’s potential contributions.”
The extension is until 3 May 2026, and the liaison officer will continue to be based in the US-led Civil Military Coordination Centre.
The Manage My Health privacy breach is one of the biggest in New Zealand’s history.RNZ / Finn Blackwell
A cybersecurity group says they’ve identified the person responsible for hacking into the Manage My Health portal, and now it wants justice served.
The privacy breach is one of the biggest in New Zealand’s history, after hackers gained access to health data being held by the privately owned patient records company, Manage My Health.
Those responsible, a hacker who calls themselves Kazu, demanded US$60,000 for the stolen data.
Manage My Health has been granted a High Court injunction preventing anyone from accessing or sharing the stolen data.
Kazu had previously published samples of the leaked information online.
Earlier this month, all posts referring to Manage My Health had been removed from the page.
The International Online Crime Coordination Centre (IOC3) has been tracking Kazu, following the breach.
It targets online harm, including child exploitation, grooming, extremism and fraud.
The group has shared its investigation with RNZ. We have agreed not to name the person believed to be behind Kazu or details that could jeopardise a further investigation.
They have also alerted the authorities.
IOC3 executive director Caden Scott said they needed to be careful.
“We’re just mindful that we’re still looking into this individual, and we don’t want to mistakenly drive this person underground by making them aware that there are these kinds of investigations ongoing into them.”
Scott said they wanted to see the person behind the attack arrested.
“We definitely want justice,” he said.
“We want this person to be looked into and this person to be arrested as a result of their actions. They’ve definitely committed a plethora of crimes there, and this isn’t the only attack that they’ve done. They’ve attacked numerous other institutions from across the entire globe.”
He said health companies hold extremely sensitive data.
“When you look at healthcare institutions, or anything like that, especially ones that hold a lot of people’s very personal data, often times they don’t really have that choice in paying the ransom or not paying the ransom,” Scott said.
“These are very sensitive topics and very sensitive information, so a lot of times it’s best to do whatever possible to stop that information getting out.”
Scott encouraged victims of ransomware attacks not to pay the hackers.
“Paying that ransom doesn’t guarantee that the data isn’t going to be leaked,” he said.
“They might ask you for half-a-million dollars, you pay that, and then they decide: ‘Well, can also sell this database to everyone as well and make even more money’.”
It was better to go through law enforcement, Scott said.
The National Cyber Security Centre’s chief operating officer Mike Jagusch said they were aware of information in the public domain identifying those who’ve claimed responsibility for the attack on Manage My Health.
He said they were working with police, Health New Zealand, and other agencies to reduce the impact of the breach and prevent further exploitation of the leaked data.
“At the National Cyber Security Centre, we have a range of tools and information it uses to help establish the identity of malicious actors,” he said.
“This process is called attribution, and it can be very complex. It requires significant analysis to have the necessary level of confidence to attribute activity to an actor or group.”
Jagusch said public attribution of cyber activity to a group or state is a whole-of-government process, and was undertaken when it was in the national interest to do so.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
The 50-year-old man has interim name suppression.SunLive
A Ni-Vanuatu migrant worker has pleaded not guilty to murdering a woman on a Kiwifruit orchard in the Bay of Plenty.
The 50-year-old man, who has interim name suppression, is accused of murdering a female Ni-Vanuatu tourist with whom he was in a family relationship.
He appeared briefly at the Tauranga District Court on Friday.
The woman was found dead on New Year’s Day at Cameron Orchards in Pukehina, where the defendant worked. Police were called to the Old Coach Road address at around 3pm.
Less than 12 hours later, Adam Nauka, a migrant worker, was found dead on the same property.
Both workers were employed in New Zealand under a Recognised Seasonal Employee (RSE) visa, and were visiting on a tourist visa.
Detective Senior Sergeant Paul Wilson announced last night that Police had filed a murder charge in place of a simple assault charge relating to the death of the women.
A Vanuatu country liaison told RNZ Pacific that Nauka passed away as the result of a medical issue.
In court this morning, defence lawyer John Wayne applied for interim name suppression for his client to continue until his scheduled High Court appearance on 18 February.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Christopher Luxon says he has a “tight disciplined team”.RNZ / Screenshot
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has confirmed he will return to Waitangi next week to meet with iwi, after opting to be elsewhere last year.
Luxon, however, will not stay up north for the national holiday itself, instead spending Waitangi Day at a community event in Auckland.
In a statement, a spokesperson said Luxon was looking forward to visiting and engaging with iwi about the recent weather response and work the government is doing to grow the economy.
Last year, Luxon observed Waitangi Day with Ngāi Tahu at Ōnuku Marae in Akaroa.
At the time, he said his intention was to celebrate the day around New Zealand, rather than in one location.
Luxon’s confirmation means all party leaders in Parliament will travel north next week.
ACT leader David Seymour said he intended to use the occasion to make clear that: “we are all equal and alike in dignity and have the same opportunity in this country, regardless of when our ancestors got here”.
Māori Crown Relations Minister Tama Potaka said Waitangi represented the font of kotahitanga.
“We go with an open heart… and some pretty strong convictions around what we need to do to get things like the economy back on track, and public services, but also with an absolute appetite to settle and implement Treaty claims.”
The recent RNZ-Reid Research poll showed 62 percent of people think it is at least somewhat important for the prime minister to be in Waitangi for Waitangi Day.
Previous prime ministers have adopted different approaches.
Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern spent a considerable length of time up north in the days leading up to and including Waitangi Day.
John Key and Helen Clark, however, adjusted their plans after falling out of favour.
After being heckled and jostled in 2004, Clark went up for breakfast in subsequent years, but would not visit Te Tii Marae.
And when Key was denied speaking rights in 2016, he opted to go to the NRL Nines in Auckland instead.
Bill English, in his sole year as prime minister, spent the day with Ngāti Whātua at Ōrākei Marae.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
People affected by recent severe weather are receiving temporary accommodation and marae-led welfare support, with recovery assistance now being delivered on the ground, says Minister for Māori Development and Associate Minister of Housing Tama Potaka.
“Temporary accommodation is already in place for households who cannot return home, with 17 motorhomes currently on the ground supporting displaced whānau. A further 25 motorhomes are now on the move, with more being deployed to affected areas as access allows,” Mr Potaka says.
Delivered through the Government’s Temporary Accommodation Service, households are being placed quickly, with assessments typically completed within 24 hours of registering with the service.
“Marae are often the first-place people turn to and they responded immediately with manaakitanga by opening their doors to welcome displaced people providing kai and shelter for whānau when it mattered most. We are making sure their mahi and leadership is acknowledged and that they’re not left carrying that cost,” Mr Potaka says.
The Government, through Te Puni Kōkiri, is delivering $1 million through the Marae Emergency Response Fund. The first tranche will see $600,000 to support 22 marae.
People who have been displaced, or who may need temporary accommodation, are encouraged to register for support.
Notes to editors
Attached is a photo of the first group to receive motorhomes two days ago in Northland.
People affected by the recent severe weather who have a current, or expected future need for temporary accommodation can register with the Temporary Accommodation Service at www.tas.mbie.govt.nzor by calling 0508 754 163. Households only need to register once. Part-payments apply, and a hardship process is available where needed.
If households need support with residential insurance claims, the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service (NZCRS) provide free, independent advice and support, phone 0508 624 327, or visit www.nzcrs.govt.nz.
Marae or organisations that provided welfare support during the severe weather events can contact their regional Te Puni Kōkiri office to begin the reimbursement process at www.tpk.govt.nz/en/whakapa-mai.
A project to restore 110 hectares of native forest on Northland’s remote Kōwhairoa Peninsula Historic Reserve is on track, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says.
“What began with a local vision and volunteer hard work has grown into a thriving restoration project, thanks to the Provincial Growth Fund boost in 2020. Since then, 94,000 native plants have been established from locally-sourced seeds and pests brought under control,” Mr Jones says.
The project received government funding of $1.54 million under the former Provincial Growth Fund’s One Billion Trees programme, administered by Te Uru Rākau – New Zealand Forest Service.
The project, led by Te Komanga Marae Trust, involves planting 132,000 native trees and controlling pests to recreate a native forest on steep, deforested, coastal land.
“The Kōwhairoa Peninsula is a significant site for Māori and was remarkable for its diverse flora and fauna, and old growth forests which were unfortunately cleared for their timber by early settlers. This project is restoring the old forest species that once dominated the area.” Mr Jones says.
Mr Jones travelled by boat to the remote Whangaroa Harbour reserve today to plant a tree and celebrate the forest restoration progress, five years after first visiting at the project’s launch.
The reserve land was returned to the Te Komanga Marae Trust to manage, as part of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa’s 2017 Treaty settlement. Te Komanga Marae trustee Roger Kingi has led the project with guidance from ecologist Dr Adam Forbes and early assistance from the Department of Conservation.
“The Kōwhairoa Peninsula Historic Reserve is a culturally and ecologically significant to New Zealand, it is great to be a part of the restoration of such a site.” Mr Jones says.
The project is on track for completion at the end of 2026.
A new facility at Mason Clinic in Auckland has officially opened, marking the next chapter of forensic mental health services in New Zealand, Health Minister Simeon Brown and Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey say.
“The opening of this facility is a major step forward for forensic mental health in New Zealand and strengthens the infrastructure needed to deliver safe, effective care,” Mr Brown says.
The Mason Clinic is New Zealand’s largest forensic psychiatric service, supporting close to two million people across Auckland and Northland. E Tū Wairua Hinengaro is a three-storey, 10,000-square-metre building – nearly double the size of the facilities it replaces.
“Modern facilities are essential for good health outcomes. They improve safety, support staff to do their jobs well, and ensure patients receive treatment in environments that are fit for purpose.
“This new facility strengthens the Mason Clinic’s ability to deliver quality forensic mental health services for the long term, while maintaining safety for patients, staff, and the wider community,”Mr Brown says.
The $200 million facility has 60 replacement inpatient beds, enabling the closure of four outdated units. It is one of the largest specialist mental health infrastructure projects in the country and forms part of nearly $1 billion being committed nationally to modernise hospitals and specialist facilities.
Mr Doocey says the new building will deliver safer, more effective care for patients and the community.
“People enter mental health facilities to get well and to be safe, and that is exactly what this new facility is designed to do. Families should be confident that when a loved one is receiving care, they are in a secure environment with the right support to recover.
“By investing in modern, fit-for-purpose facilities, we are ensuring people receive the care they need to get better, while also protecting the wider community.
“Expanding and upgrading mental health facilities is a key part of the Government’s plan to improve access to mental health services and deliver better outcomes for patients,” Mr Doocey says.
The opening builds on wider work underway in forensic mental health, including a $51 million investment in Budget 2025 to deliver 10 new acute inpatient beds and eight new step-down beds through non-government organisations in the Midland region.
Note to editors:
Beds will be introduced gradually through a phased opening to ensure a smooth transition for patients and staff.
Most of us would agree fairness is a good guiding principle in life. Actually defining and applying it in the law, however, isn’t quite so simple.
Since March last year, New Zealand’s financial sector – including banks, insurers and credit unions – has been governed by the Conduct of Financial Institutions regime.
At its centre sits a principle that “financial institutions must treat consumers fairly”. Under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (and amendments made in 2022), the regime is administered and enforced by the Financial Markets Authority.
Each financial institution must establish, maintain and publish a fair-conduct program that satisfies a set of statutory minimum requirements.
These prescribe internal systems, controls, monitoring and governance processes intended to demonstrate the institution treats consumers fairly in practice. Breaches can incur a “pecuniary penalty order”.
On its face, this is uncontroversial. Fairness offers moral comfort and signals decency and responsibility. But translating fairness into a legal obligation is not without cost.
It also risks compromising consumer autonomy and informed choice by forcing financial institutions to limit the shape or scope of products and services that might otherwise be attractive.
Subjective regulation
While section 446C of the act provides broad definitions of fair treatment, it leaves significant scope for interpretation by regulators and institutions.
The result is a regulatory model that is essentially subjective and which shapes the design and distribution of financial products before they go to market.
This presents practical challenges for intuitions adapting to a fairness standard that is inherently vague. But it also raises questions about the balance between consumer protection and potential regulatory overreach.
In 2024, the government consulted on whether the statutory minimum requirements for fair conduct programs should be repealed or amended.
This was in response to industry concerns that some fairness requirements were either unnecessary or duplicated other regulations, or they were unduly prescriptive given the actual risks of harm to consumers.
Industry submissions generally acknowledged the high compliance costs associated with the current framework while supporting the broader objective of fair consumer treatment.
In response, the government chose to amend rather than repeal those minimum fairness requirements. In 2025, it introduced a draft amendment bill proposing changes to the statutory requirements for fair conduct programs.
If enacted, this may make the regime less strict. But it would also force institutions that have already invested heavily in compliance under the existing law to review and modify their programs once again.
Unintended consequences
This revisiting of the law reflects the the difficulty of defining fairness as a legally enforceable standard. Fairness is not an objective concept. It’s subjective and evaluative. What’s fair to one person may not be fair to another.
Yet the law now requires that financial institutions effectively prove they are designing and offering products and services in ways that align with the Financial Markets Authority’s evolving understanding of fair treatment.
As a result, even where consumers understand a product’s features and willingly accept its risks, the fairness obligation may still require institutions to reconsider whether the product should be offered at all.
On the surface, prioritising consumer interests over consumer choice might seem reasonable. But it can have unintended consequences.
In 2021, for example, the government amended the Credit Contracts and
Consumer Finance Act to impose highly prescriptive affordability checks on all consumer lending.
A 2022 investigation by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment found the reforms had caused borrowers who should have passed the affordability test were being declined or offered reduced credit.
Fairness and risk
Because the fairness principle is broad and subjective, even if the Financial Markets Authority’s current interpretation is reasonable there is no guarantee future enforcement will be.
Once parliament embeds an open-ended moral concept in law, it hands significant discretion to whoever interprets it next.
Of course fairness matters. But it should be a moral compass for financial institutions and a cultural expectation for financial markets rather than an opaque licence for regulatory paternalism.
It risks turning financial institutions into overseers of consumer behaviour rather than providers of products and services.
It would be more straightforward to enforce existing laws such as the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and the fair-dealing provisions in the Financial Markets Conduct Act.
The aim should be to target specific misconduct, strengthen consumers’ financial literacy through education, and intervene where there is genuine, demonstrated harm.
The law should preserve the space for consumers to make their own decisions, even when those decisions involve risk. Fairness is a virtue, autonomy is a right. We should be careful not to sacrifice the second in the name of the first.
Benjamin Liu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Manage My Health privacy breach is one of the biggest in New Zealand’s history.RNZ / Finn Blackwell
A cybersecurity company says they’ve identified the person responsible for hacking into the Manage My Health portal, and now it wants justice served.
The privacy breach is one of the biggest in New Zealand’s history, after hackers gained access to health data being held by the privately owned patient records company, Manage My Health.
Those responsible, a hacker who calls themselves Kazu, demanded US$60,000 for the stolen data.
Manage My Health has been granted a High Court injunction preventing anyone from accessing or sharing the stolen data.
Kazu had previously published samples of the leaked information online.
Earlier this month, all posts referring to Manage My Health had been removed from the page.
The International Online Crime Coordination Centre (IOC3) has been tracking Kazu, following the breach.
It targets online harm, including child exploitation, grooming, extremism and fraud.
The company has shared its investigation with RNZ. We have agreed not to name the person believed to be behind Kazu or details that could jeopardise a further investigation.
They have also alerted the authorities.
IOC3 executive director Caden Scott said they needed to be careful.
“We’re just mindful that we’re still looking into this individual, and we don’t want to mistakenly drive this person underground by making them aware that there are these kinds of investigations ongoing into them.”
Scott said they wanted to see the person behind the attack arrested.
“We definitely want justice,” he said.
“We want this person to be looked into and this person to be arrested as a result of their actions. They’ve definitely committed a plethora of crimes there, and this isn’t the only attack that they’ve done. They’ve attacked numerous other institutions from across the entire globe.”
He said health companies hold extremely sensitive data.
“When you look at healthcare institutions, or anything like that, especially ones that hold a lot of people’s very personal data, often times they don’t really have that choice in paying the ransom or not paying the ransom,” Scott said.
“These are very sensitive topics and very sensitive information, so a lot of times it’s best to do whatever possible to stop that information getting out.”
Scott encouraged victims of ransomware attacks not to pay the hackers.
“Paying that ransom doesn’t guarantee that the data isn’t going to be leaked,” he said.
“They might ask you for half-a-million dollars, you pay that, and then they decide: ‘Well, can also sell this database to everyone as well and make even more money’.”
It was better to go through law enforcement, Scott said.
The National Cyber Security Centre’s chief operating officer Mike Jagusch said they were aware of information in the public domain identifying those who’ve claimed responsibility for the attack on Manage My Health.
He said they were working with police, Health New Zealand, and other agencies to reduce the impact of the breach and prevent further exploitation of the leaked data.
“At the National Cyber Security Centre, we have a range of tools and information it uses to help establish the identity of malicious actors,” he said.
“This process is called attribution, and it can be very complex. It requires significant analysis to have the necessary level of confidence to attribute activity to an actor or group.”
Jagusch said public attribution of cyber activity to a group or state is a whole-of-government process, and was undertaken when it was in the national interest to do so.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Lisa Maclennan, 50, worked at Morrinsville Intermediate School.Supplied / Givealittle
A third victim of the deadly Mt Maunganui landslide has been formally identified as Lisa Anne Maclennan, 50, who was hailed as a hero after giving warning to others at the campground.
Her body was found on January 27, five days after the slip.
At an identification hearing at Tauranga District Court on Friday, Coroner Heather McKenzie told Maclennan’s family joining by video link, to rest assured she was at the heart of the identification and a human being.
“I am so very sorry or your loss, I extend to you my sincerest condolences,” she told them.
“I didn’t have the privilege of meeting Lisa, but I do have the privilege of meeting you via this link today as you join us in the courtroom.”
Maclennan was identified with the help of DNA, dental records and a butterfly tattoo above her ankle.
Detective Senior Sergeant Brent Griffiths told the Coroner the evidence established her identity to the required legal standard.
Coroner McKenzie said the evidence before her was the culmination of specialist work undertaken by police staff, forensic staff and many others.
It was evidence she accepted, she said.
Maclennan had been a literacy centre tutor at Morrinsville Intermediate School.
A Givealittle page set up by Maclennan’s sister had raised more than $35k for the Morrinsville teacher’s family.
“She lost her life trying to save everyone else,” the page said.
“We cannot put a value on the loss of a loved one but any donations will make a difference and help this whanau through this extremely difficult time.”
Many donors commented on Maclennan’s work with Morrinsville Intermediate School students over the years, while others paid tribute to the final acts of a “courageous, selfless woman”.
A woman present at the campsite on the morning of the landslide said Maclennan had woken her up shortly before 5am to warn her a slip had pushed her campervan forward.
“She took control. She was making sure everyone was safe. She was, you know, literally rounding people and making sure they were all safe, and being the organiser.
“Lisa [Maclennan] and her husband were amazing. And if it hadn’t been for them there, I would imagine that there would have been many more people.”
On Wednesday, the first victim was formally identified as Max Furse-Kee. His identity was released on the same day he would have turned 16.
The next day, Thursday, Måns Loke Bernhardsson, a 20-year-old Swedish tourist was also formally identified.
Jacqualine Suzanne Wheeler, 71, Susan Doreen Knowles, 71 and Sharon Maccanico, 15, remain unaccounted for.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
The following is a statement on behalf of Lisa’s husband, Travis:
We are absolutely devastated following the loss of our beloved Lisa.
Lisa was a cherished daughter, mother, aunty, sister, grandmother (Nan Nan) and wife, and we all loved her dearly.
Lisa was very spontaneous and adventurous. She was always looking for new things to do and would never shy away from a challenge.
Lisa was fully devoted to her job as a learning assistant and loved working with young people that had challenges in their learning. She loved nothing more than seeing students succeed and overcome personal obstacles.
That is one thing, among many, that we loved about her, and know the whole community did too.
Lisa always had the best interests of others at the front of her mind, and she would always put others before herself. She was incredibly selfless and would often sacrifice things for other people.
Lisa went above and beyond for her friends, her family, and the community.
She was loving, humble, loyal and we are going to miss her immensely.
Lisa did not like attention, but she always worked so hard in the background to help others succeed.
We as a family would like to thank Police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s Urban Search and Rescue teams, rapid relief, local iwi, and everyone who has been on site day after day working tirelessly to help bring Lisa and all those unaccounted for, back to their families.
Note to media: The family will not be providing further comment and ask that their privacy be respected as they grieve.
How do you translate ancient Palmyrene script from a Roman tombstone? How many paired tendons are supported by a specific sesamoid bone in a hummingbird? Can you identify closed syllables in Biblical Hebrew based on the latest scholarship on Tiberian pronunciation traditions?
These are some of the questions in “Humanity’s Last Exam”, a new benchmark introduced in a study published this week in Nature. The collection of 2,500 questions is specifically designed to probe the outer limits of what today’s artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot do.
The benchmark represents a global collaboration of nearly 1,000 international experts across a range of academic fields. These academics and researchers contributed questions at the frontier of human knowledge. The problems required graduate-level expertise in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science and the humanities. Importantly, every question was tested against leading AI models before inclusion. If an AI could not answer it correctly at the time the test was designed, the question was rejected.
This process explains why the initial results looked so different from other benchmarks. While AI chatbots score above 90% on popular tests, when Humanity’s Last Exam was first released in early 2025, leading models struggled badly. GPT-4o managed just 2.7% accuracy. Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 4.1%. Even OpenAI’s most powerful model, o1, achieved only 8%.
The low scores were the point. The benchmark was constructed to measure what remained beyond AI’s grasp. And while some commentators have suggested that benchmarks like Humanity’s Last Exam chart a path toward artificial general intelligence, or even superintelligence – that is, AI systems capable of performing any task at human or superhuman levels – we believe this is wrong for three reasons.
Benchmarks measure task performance, not intelligence
When a student scores well on the bar exam, we can reasonably predict they’ll make a competent lawyer. That’s because the test was designed to assess whether humans have acquired the knowledge and reasoning skills needed for legal practice – and for humans, that works. The understanding required to pass genuinely transfers to the job.
But AI systems are not humans preparing for careers.
When a large language model scores well on the bar exam, it tells us the model can produce correct-looking answers to legal questions. It doesn’t tell us the model understands law, can counsel a nervous client, or exercise professional judgment in ambiguous situations.
The test measures something real for humans; for AI it measures only performance on the test itself.
Using human ability tests to benchmark AI is common practice, but it’s fundamentally misleading. Assuming a high test score means the machine has become more human-like is a category error, much like concluding that a calculator “understands” mathematics because it can solve equations faster than any person.
Human and machine intelligence are fundamentally different
Humans learn continuously from experience. We have intentions, needs and goals. We live lives, inhabit bodies and experience the world directly. Our intelligence evolved to serve our survival as organisms and our success as social creatures.
Large language models derive their capabilities from patterns in text during training. But they don’t really learn.
For humans, intelligence comes first and language serves as a tool for communication – intelligence is prelinguistic. But for large language models, language is the intelligence – there’s nothing underneath.
Even the creators of Humanity’s Last Exam acknowledge this limitation:
High accuracy on [Humanity’s Last Exam] would demonstrate expert-level performance on closed-ended, verifiable questions and cutting-edge scientific knowledge, but it would not alone suggest autonomous research capabilities or artificial general intelligence.
Subbarao Kambhampati, professor at Arizona State University and former president of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, puts it more clearly:
Humanity’s essence isn’t captured by a static test but rather by our ability to evolve and tackle previously unimaginable questions.
Developers like leaderboards
There’s another problem. AI developers use benchmarks to optimise their models for leaderboard performance. They’re essentially cramming for the exam. And unlike humans, for whom the learning for the test builds understanding, AI optimisation just means getting better at the specific test.
But it’s working.
Since Humanity’s Last Exam was published online in early 2025, scores have climbed dramatically. Gemini 3 Pro Preview now tops the leaderboard at 38.3% accuracy, followed by GPT-5 at 25.3% and Grok 4 at 24.5%.
Does this improvement mean these models are approaching human intelligence? No. It means they’ve gotten better at the kinds of questions the exam contains. The benchmark has become a target to optimise against.
Unlike academic-style benchmarks, GDPval focuses on tasks based on actual work products such as project documents, data analyses and deliverables that exist in professional settings.
What this means for you
If you’re using AI tools in your work or considering adopting them, don’t be swayed by benchmark scores. A model that aces Humanity’s Last Exam might still struggle with the specific tasks you need done.
It’s also worth noting the exam’s questions are heavily skewed toward certain domains. Mathematics alone accounts for 41% of the benchmark, with physics, biology and computer science making up much of the rest. If your work involves writing, communication, project management or customer service, the exam tells you almost nothing about which model might serve you best.
A practical approach is to devise your own tests based on what you actually need AI to do, then evaluate newer models against criteria that matter to you. AI systems are genuinely useful – but any discussion about superintelligence remains science fiction and a distraction from the real work of making these tools relevant to people’s lives.
Kai Riemer is co-author of the annual “Skills Horizon” research project, which identifies key leadership skills (including in AI), based on interviews with global and Australian leaders and executives across various fields. He also educates leaders in AI fluency through Sydney Executive Plus at the University of Sydney.
Sandra Peter is co-author of the annual “Skills Horizon” research project, which identifies key leadership skills (including in AI), based on interviews with global and Australian leaders and executives across various fields. She also educates leaders in AI fluency through Sydney Executive Plus at the University of Sydney.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Kemish, Adjunct Professor, School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, The University of Queensland
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos speech should unsettle Australian strategic thinkers, who have been raised in the belief the US alliance is the unshakeable foundation of Australia’s regional security.
Carney’s point – that American leadership is no longer a reliable anchor for the international system – had strong appeal in Europe and Canada. But it also highlights what is now clearly the weakest link in the US-Australia alliance – not American capability, but American reliability.
Deterrence is not just a matter of military hardware and presence. It relies on confidence that commitments will be honoured, risks will be borne, and allies will not be treated with disdain. When US policy becomes more transactional and less predictable, that confidence weakens — even if the underlying military power remains formidable.
But what is the alternative to Pax Americana? Washington’s traditional allies each face their own unique strategic circumstances, and their answers will naturally vary.
Trump renewed tariff threats against Canada after Carney’s Davos speech.
In Australia, we have largely managed to keep our head down. We have not been the direct target of American tariffs or sovereignty threats like Canada and Europe. Nor have we publicly challenged Washington in the way some others have – most recently in response to Trump’s apparent contempt for allied sacrifice.
Instead, Australia has doubled down on alliance management. This is mostly visible through AUKUS, which is hanging on doggedly despite growing questions about timeframes, costs and long-term sustainability.
AUKUS reflects Canberra’s judgement that remaining deeply embedded in the US strategic system is preferable to standing outside it. But it also exposes the Australian government to charges it is accepting new forms of dependence on future American and British political decisions, industrial capacity we do not control, and timelines that stretch beyond the current strategic decade.
It is a wager on alignment and continuity at a moment when both are uncertain. That reality frames how Australia should respond to Carney’s call.
Throughout the post-war era, Australian governments have spoken about the US alliance in warm, expansive terms: shared values, shared history, shared sacrifice. The relationship was framed not only as strategically necessary, but morally reassuring. That language is becoming hard to sustain.
Public confidence in the United States has weakened considerably since Trump took office again and began pushing an “America First” doctrine. In public debate, criticism of American conduct increasingly competes with, and sometimes displaces, concerns about China’s rising power.
For Australia, this creates an uncomfortable dilemma. The US remains the only power with the military reach and technological depth to shape the regional strategic balance and constrain China’s ambitions.
Yet, the political foundations that made reliance on that power relatively predictable — and domestically saleable — are eroding.
Managing that tension is now a core task of Australian statecraft. The appointment of Greg Moriarty as Australia’s next ambassador to Washington is very welcome. He brings not only deep knowledge of our own military requirements and the US system, but something equally important: long experience in the Asia-Pacific region. He knows better than most that the US-Australia alliance cannot be separated from the dynamics of Australia’s neighbourhood.
But a growing challenge for the Australian government he serves will be to persuade the public that China — rather than the United States — is still our primary strategic problem.
If the public conversation shifts from managing China’s rise to managing America’s decline, governments will struggle to explain why uncomfortable investments, risks and trade-offs with the Trump administration are required.
What unchecked Chinese influence would mean
Australia should maintain cautious about Beijing’s regional behaviour, even while strengthening our bilateral economic ties with China.
The issue is not whether China builds roads, stadiums or ports in the Pacific. It is what an overall environment of uncontested Chinese strategic hegemony in the region would mean for Australia.
If China gains a stronger foothold in the Pacific, regional civil society leaders warn their governments would face pressure to align political positions, security choices and domestic rules with Chinese preferences.
For Australia, the consequences would be profound. Our ability to operate militarily, diplomatically and economically in our own region would narrow. Our capacity to support Pacific partners in resisting coercion would weaken. And our freedom to make independent strategic choices would be constrained.
It is important to acknowledge Canberra is not standing still.
The Albanese government has made real progress in strengthening regional partnerships to help buffer the unpredictable US alliance. This includes the new alliance with Papua New Guinea, recently concluded defence cooperation treaty with Indonesia, and the overall intensified, respectful Pacific engagement we have seen in recent years. All of this reflects a more deliberate effort to embed Australia more deeply in its own region.
These steps deepen Australian influence, give regional partners more choices, and reduce the risks associated with over-reliance on any single external power. But they do not remove the underlying strategic dilemma.
The US still plays an important role in our region, albeit with more caveats than Canberra has traditionally acknowledged.
But capability is not the same as commitment. Uncertainty itself can be truly destabilising.
American power may still shape the regional environment, but it does so unevenly and with greater risk of miscalculation. China does not need to defeat the US to exploit this; it only needs to test thresholds and capitalise on ambiguity.
Put simply, the protection the US offers is less absolute — and far less reassuring — than Australian rhetoric often implies.
The way forward: not abandonment, but adjustment
First, Australian leaders need to speak more plainly about the US alliance in order to maintain public support.
This means no longer trumpeting shared virtue, but being honest about what is actually a conditional, interest-based arrangement with a larger power whose values and priorities do not always align with our own.
Second, Australia must continue to hedge more deliberately. This includes deepening defence cooperation with Japan and India, enhancing strategic partnerships across Southeast Asia, and sustaining Pacific engagement. All of this becomes more important as US certainty declines.
Third, as others have argued, Australia must invest more seriously in its own capabilities — diplomatically, militarily and politically — so our security is not wholly contingent on a single power.
The era of comforting myths is over. The alliance still matters — but it is more fragile and conditional now. Recognising that is the necessary starting point for safeguarding Australian security.
Ian Kemish is a former head of the prime minister’s international division, and has represented Australia as an ambassador in the Asia-Pacific and Europe. Alongside his UQ role, he is a distinguished fellow at the ANU National Security College and an industry fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute.
An outbreak of the deadly Nipah virus in India has put many countries in Asia on high alert, given the fatality rate in humans can be between 40% and 75%. Several countries, including Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, have introduced new screening and testing measures, after at least two people died of Nipah virus in the Indian state of West Bengal this month.
But what is Nipah virus, and how concerned should we be?
Here’s what you need to know.
What is Nipah virus?
Like Hendra virus, Nipah is in a category of viruses called henipaviruses. It is zoonotic, meaning it can spread from animals to humans.
As I explained in a previous Conversation article, outbreaks happen in Asia from time to time. The first outbreak was reported in 1998 in Malaysia.
There are three major ways it’s transmitted.
The first is via exposure to bats, and in particular via contact with the saliva, urine or faeces of an infected bat. Infections can also occur from contact with other infected animals, such as pigs in the original outbreak in Malaysia.
The second way it can be transferred is by contaminated foods, particularly date palm products. This means consuming date palm juice or sap that is contaminated with the bodily fluids of infected bats.
The third is human-to-human transmission. Nipah transmission between humans has been reported via close contact such caring for a sick person. This can mean, for instance, being infected with bodily secretions contaminated with the virus in households or hospitals. This is thought to be less common than the other transmission pathways.
What are the symptoms?
Nipah virus infections happen quickly. The time from infection to symptoms appearing is generally from four days to three weeks.
It’s a terrible disease. Around half the people who get severe Nipah virus infection die of it.
The symptoms can vary in severity. It can cause pneumonia, just as COVID could.
But the illness we worry most about is neurological symptoms; Nipah can cause encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain.
These effects on the brain are why the fatality rate is so high.
Symptoms might include:
fever
seizures
difficulty breathing
falling unconscious
severe headaches
being unable to move a limb
jerky movements
personality changes, such as suddenly behaving oddly or psychosis.
Unusually, some patients who survive the acute phase of a Nipah infection can get relapsed encephalitis many years later, even more than a decade later.
Is there any treatment or vaccine?
Not yet, but in Australia development of a treatment called m102.4 is underway.
There was a phase 1 trial of this treatment published in 2020, which is where researchers give it to healthy people to see how it goes and if there are any side effects.
The trial found that a single dose of the treatment was well tolerated by patients.
So it is still quite a way off being actually available to help people infected with Nipah virus, but there’s hope.
There is currently no vaccine for Nipah virus. In theory, m102.4 it could be a preventative but it’s too early to say; at this point it is being trialled as a treatment.
How worried should I be?
This Nipah outbreak in India is worrying because there’s currently no prevention and no treatment available, and it’s a severe disease. While it is an important disease, it isn’t likely to be a public health issue on the same scale as COVID.
This is because it doesn’t transmit efficiently from person to person, and the main way it is transmitted is from food and infected animals.
For people living outside of areas where cases are currently being reported, the risk is low. Even in the affected areas, the number of cases is small at this stage, but public health authorities are taking appropriate control measures.
If you become unwell after travelling to areas where cases have been reported, you should let your doctor know where and when you travelled.
If someone gets a fever after travelling to affected areas, we would probably be much more worried it was caused by other infections such as malaria or typhoid than Nipah, at this stage.
Overall, though, everything needs to be put in context. We hear about new viruses and incidents all the time. Nipah is important for affected countries, but outside of those countries, it is just something we closely monitor and be alert for.
Allen Cheng receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care, including for public health surveillance systems. He has been a member of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation and the Advisory Committee for Vaccines.
Wellington Firebirds pace-bowler Ben Sears will join the Black Caps as a travelling reserve for the ICC T20 World Cup in India, starting in a week.
Sears will replace Kyle Jamieson, who was called into the main squad last week following the withdrawal of Adam Milne with a hamstring injury.
The 27-year-old will link up with the T20 World Cup squad in Mumbai on Sunday ahead of the side’s warm-up match against the US on 6 February.
In 2024, Sears was also named as a travelling reserve player in New Zealand’s squad for the 2024 Men’s T20 World Cup tournament.
Black Caps coach Rob Walter said Sears had made an encouraging comeback from the hamstring injury that ruled him out of the start of the home summer.
“Ben’s worked hard to get himself back on the park and it’s been great to see him back playing and performing well,” Walter said.
“He’s had a full Super Smash campaign with the Firebirds where he was the competition’s joint second-top wicket-taker from the round-robin stage with 15 wickets from his nine games.
“It will be great to have Ben with us here in India and ready to make an impact at the World Cup should someone get injured.”
The Black Caps are in Group D alongside Afghanistan, Canada, South Africa and the UAE, with their opening match on 8 February in Chennai against Afghanistan.