While courts fret about AI and deep fakes, here's the real question: what happens when government agencies hand you documents that tell you absolutely nothing?

FYI.org.nz just published five new OIA responses. Two of them are about hospital infrastructure financing. Same request, sent to different agencies. Both claim to answer questions about public-private partnerships, capital costs, and who actually owns the buildings where we go to get treated. (Source: FYI.org.nz (OIA tracker), oia-recent-responses)

Neither response contains a single dollar figure.

Think about that. Someone asked: how much are we spending on hospital infrastructure through PPPs? Who owns these buildings? What are the financial risks to taxpayers? And the agencies responded with documents that somehow manage to discuss hospital financing without mentioning any actual finances.

This isn't about courts struggling to verify AI-generated evidence. This is about agencies perfecting the art of responding to information requests without providing information.

The other three responses aren't much better. One covers Defence estate environmental hazards. Another details salaries and structure at an unnamed agency. The third lists foreign official visits and gifts to police. All perfectly legitimate requests. All answered. But scan through them and ask yourself: did I learn anything that would help me understand how my tax dollars are being spent?

Here's what makes this dangerous. These responses are technically compliant. The agencies didn't refuse the requests. They didn't miss the deadline. They handed over documents. You can browse them yourself on FYI.org.nz right now.

But compliance without disclosure is the new game. Release the organogram but not the salary bands. Acknowledge the PPP exists but don't mention what it costs. List the gifts but don't say what they're worth or who gave them.

Tower Insurance just warned that weather-related claims will nearly halve their profits. Christchurch residents are asking why Lake Forsyth wasn't opened before the floods. These are questions about decisions and their costs. And when citizens ask government agencies about their decisions and costs, they get back documents that read like they were designed by a lawyer whose only instruction was: don't tell them anything useful.

The courts are worried about fake evidence. Fair enough. But what about real evidence that's been redacted, summarised, and sanitised into meaninglessness?

Two separate OIA responses about hospital financing. Not one number about how much we're spending or who owns what. That's not a transparency problem. That's a transparency theatre.

You want to know what AI threatens in our courts? It's not deep fakes. It's the growing gap between what government says it's telling you and what you actually learn. At least with a deep fake, you know something's been fabricated. With these OIA responses, you get real documents that somehow tell you less than nothing.