While New Zealand's courts worry about AI and deep fakes undermining evidence, government agencies have found a simpler way to dodge scrutiny: just refuse to provide evidence for their own public statements.

In recent weeks, multiple agencies have declined Official Information Act requests asking for the factual basis of claims they made. Not opinions. Not projections. The evidence supporting statements they'd already put on the public record.

Two separate requesters asked for evidence to support a claim that councils are choosing to fund toilets over road maintenance. Both got refused. Police declined to provide the factual basis for public statements about roadside drug testing. The Electricity Authority wouldn't hand over aggregated smart meter data from 2018 to 2025, despite the request specifically asking for anonymised information. (Source: FYI.org.nz (OIA tracker), oia-refusals)

This marks a shift. For years, OIA refusals tended to cluster around sensitive policy advice or commercially confidential material. Now agencies are refusing requests that essentially ask: can you show us the homework behind your press release?

The pattern accelerated through 2024. Early in the year, refusals still followed predictable lines: legal privilege, policy under development, privacy concerns. By mid-year, agencies were declining requests that should have been straightforward. A request for evidence supporting a government claim would come back with a refusal citing "substantial collation" required, even when the claim suggested the evidence already existed in a usable form.

By late 2024 and into 2025, the refusals became blunter. The toilet-versus-roads request? Refused twice, to two different people, suggesting a deliberate position rather than an individual decision. The Police drug testing basis? Refused. No counter-offer to provide partial information. No suggestion of what might be released. Just no.

You can see every refused request at FYI.org.nz, the public OIA tracker. What you'll notice is how many recent refusals involve requests that reference specific claims made by the agency itself. Someone makes a statement to media or in a report. A member of the public asks for the supporting data. Request refused.

The irony sits uncomfortably alongside the courts' AI concerns. Judges worry about fabricated evidence entering the justice system. Meanwhile, the public can't verify whether government statements rest on real evidence or rough impressions dressed up as fact.

This isn't about protecting sensitive information. It's about refusing to show your working. When an agency makes a public claim, then refuses to provide the basis for that claim, it's effectively saying: trust us, don't check.

The trajectory is clear. In 2023, these types of refusals were rare. In 2024, they became more common. In early 2025, they're routine. The smart meter request was declined just weeks ago. The council spending refusals are even more recent.

Every refusal strengthens the message: we'll tell you what we think, but we won't let you verify it. In a year where Tower expects weather claims to nearly halve its profits, perhaps government agencies feel the same way about accountability requests. Too expensive. Too much work. Better to just say no.