On Thursday afternoon, almost 300 pages of police emails, text messages and documents were released about the Tom Phillips Netflix documentary, following an Official Information Act request. What was released raises real questions about the appropriateness of the relationship and communication between police and the production company - and whether the doco should be made at all.  

The planned Netflix documentary sits right in the middle of the tension between public interest storytelling, and the welfare of vulnerable children. It is not just a media issue - the information that was released poses legal, ethical, and social questions.  

On one hand, there is a clear argument for the documentary to go ahead. The Phillips case gripped the nation: three children were missing for nearly four years before being recovered after a violent police confrontation in 2025. A documentary could provide transparency, explain police decision-making, and help the public understand how such a prolonged disappearance was able to happen.  

From the production company perspective a documentary is a good business opportunity. Global true-crime documentaries sell, and this story has undeniable international appeal. Producer Dame Julie Christie isn’t one to sit around discussing placing levy's on streaming services, rather she believes in producing globally appealing content they will buy. So, it was no surprise to learn this doco would be broadcast on Netflix - Christie has always walked the talk.  

However, the OIA documents complicate things. They show that filmmakers were granted unusually high levels of access to police operations, including briefings and access to a crime scene, in what could be seen as an exchange for police oversight of the final product.  

This raises two concerns. First, it risks turning the documentary into what critics describe as “police PR,” rather than an independent account. The police have final sign off on the editing of the documentary, which implies they have a certain amount of control over the narrative.  

Second, it suggests the production company was given privileges beyond what is typical for media. The production company was given a heads up about Philip’s death before his family or the media, which the Police Commissioner Richard Chambers has expressed regret for.  

The Commissioner also added that the documentary was not always handled in line with the usual protocols and processes that apply to documentaries police are involved in. That’s not on the production company, which clearly built a good working relationship with police and were just doing their job when asking for co-operation and access. If it’s granted, they’re not going to turn it down.  

But where most New Zealanders will be wary of this documentary is when it comes to the welfare of the children. Experts and family members have already warned that a film could retraumatise them, particularly given their prolonged isolation and the ongoing process of reintegration. There are court injunctions limiting what can be reported, signalling that the legal system prioritises their protection over public disclosure.

But if there was not this documentary there will only be another one - or a book, or articles. Everyone has an opinion on this story; the interest won’t go away.  

The Police Commissioner said, “There were strict conditions in place to protect the children and sensitive police operational information,” Let’s hope that’s the case. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.