Francesca Rudkin: Should the Tom Phillips Netflix doco be made at all?

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.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin
from News talks'b SO.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
On Thursday afternoon, almost three hundred 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

(00:34):
documentary sits right in the middle of the tension between
public interest storytelling and the welfare of vulnerable children. It's
not just a media issue. The information that was released
poses legal, ethical, and social questions. On the one hand,
there is a clear argument for the documentary to go ahead.
The Phillips case gripped the nation. Three children were missing

(00:56):
for nearly four years before being recovered after a violent
police confrontation in twenty twenty five. A documentary could provide transparency,
explain police decision, 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

(01:18):
global true crime documentaries sell and this story has undeniable
international appeal. Producer Dame Juli Christie isn't one to sit
around discussing placing levees on streaming services. Rather, she believes
and producing globally appealing content they will buy, so it
was no surprise to learn this doco would be broadcast
on Netflix. Christy has always walked the talk. However, the

(01:41):
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, and what could be
seen as an exchange for police oversight of the final product.
So this raises two concerns. First, it risks turning the
documentary into what critics describe as police pr rather than

(02:03):
an independent account, and the police have final sign off
on the editing of the documentary, which does imply they
have a certain amount of control over the narrative. Second,
it suggests that the production company was given privileges beyond
what is typical for media, and the production company was
given a heads up about Phillips's death before his family
or the media, and the police Commissioner Richard Chambers has

(02:25):
expressed regret for that. 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 with.
But that's not on the production company, which clearly built
a good working relationship with police. And we're just doing
their job when asking for cooperation and access. If it's granted,

(02:47):
they're not going to turn it down. But where most
New Zealanders will be wary of this documentaries when it
comes to the welfare of the children. Experts and family
members have already warned that a film could retraumatize them,
particularly given their prolonged isolation and the ongoing process of reintegration.
There are court injunctions limiting what can be reported, signaling
that the legal system prioritizes their protection over public disclosure,

(03:12):
as it should. But if there was not this documentary,
there will only be another one, or a book or articles.
Everyone has an opinion on the story, the interest won't
go away. The Police commissioner said there were strict conditions
in place to protect the children in sensitive police operational information.
Let's hope that's the case.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin listen
live to news talks it'd be from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio