A High Court hearing is under way to challenge extensive suppression orders restricting what media, police and Oranga Tamariki can report about the Tom Phillips case.
The orders were first imposed on 8 September, when Justice Helen Cull granted an urgent injunction sought by Phillips’ mother, hours after Phillips died in a shootout with police following a reported burglary.
Media can currently report only the fact of this week’s hearing, which is continuing in Hamilton and tests both the original High Court orders and additional Family Court restrictions.
In parallel, the government has announced a private public inquiry into how authorities handled the nearly four years the Phillips children were missing, and whether all practicable steps were taken to protect them.
Attorney-General Judith Collins said the inquiry, led by Justice Simon Moore KC and due to report by 21 July 2026, must balance strong public interest with the children’s privacy. The Phillips family and police have both welcomed the review.
Separately, on 15 September, Family Court Judge Garry Collin issued a second, wide-ranging injunction, making the court the children’s guardian and heavily restricting publication of any information about them, including in books, films or documentaries, to protect their welfare.
What about that documentary? Why was nothing done sooner to locate the kids? Too busy gathering footage for their SICK documentary that I will on principle never watch. Just leave the kids alone now and let them speak in the future if they wish.
I think this course, of supressing to protect the children, will eventually fail.
There is far too much in this country that is being hidden using the pretexts of protecting someone/something. (the members of medsafe committee that approved comirnaty when Chris James and Ashley Bloomfield declined to approve it, the events of the Christchurch shooting, etc)
The vast majority of NZers will sympathise with the children.
A “private public inquiry. So we get to pay for it but don’t get to know what’s going on. Pretty much sums up unaccountable undemocratic government, in this country.
This has to stop. Please join me in not voting for Labour or National this election. Both have used this tactic when it suits them.
ChatGPT says.
Here’s a broad overview of many of the more unpopular or controversial decisions and actions — or broadly perceived mis-steps — by Judith Collins over her long political career. “Unpopular” is subjective, and some of these were especially disliked by parts of the public, media, political opponents, or even her own party. I list them chronologically or thematically.
Major controversies and unpopular decisions / actions by Judith Collins
• 2004 – Parental-notification amendment on abortion
In 2004, as an MP, Collins proposed an amendment to require parental notification when a girl under 16 sought an abortion. That amendment was heavily defeated.
Wikipedia.
The proposal was opposed by the medical community (including the NZ Medical Association and General Practitioners) on grounds that forcing parental notification could endanger vulnerable minors — e.g. incest victims or those in abusive families.
Wikipedia.
This move was unpopular with pro-choice advocates and many in the medical community.
• 2014 – Conflict of interest scandal: visit to Oravida (company linked to her husband)
In March 2014, Collins visited Oravida’s offices in Shanghai — a company for which her husband was a director — during a taxpayer-funded trip. Around the same time, Oravida had asked the government for help on Chinese border control issues.
Wikipedia
RNZ
She later dined with company bosses, claiming the visit was “on the way to the airport,” even though their offices were in the opposite direction (~30 km away).
RNZ
The company subsequently used her image for promotional purposes, without her consent. This raised major concerns about conflict of interest, mixing public office with personal/personal-associates’ private business.
Wikipedia
Indian Weekender
The then-Prime Minister publicly admonished her, giving her a “final warning.”
Wikipedia
RNZ
Many saw this as unethical and damaging to public trust.
• 2014 – Environmental backlash and “Wetlands” comment
Around the same time, it emerged that swamp kauri (ancient timber) had been stockpiled under the name “Oravida Kauri,” a business linked to Oravida and Collins’ husband — raising environmental and governance concerns.
RNZ
Indian Weekender
When asked about it, Collins reportedly responded to a journalist: “Am I the Minister of Wetlands?” That flippant remark angered environmentalists and those concerned about forest/land protection and sustainable use.
RNZ
That comment became a symbol of perceived disregard for environmental concerns and government accountability.
• 2014 – Accusations in Dirty Politics (links to blogger, alleged leaks)
The 2014 book Dirty Politics by Nicky Hager alleged that Collins had passed private government or public servant information to a right-wing blogger, Cameron Slater. This triggered serious backlash.
RNZ
Wikipedia
She resigned from Cabinet after allegations she tried to undermine the then-head of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
RNZ
Although a High Court judge later cleared her of wrongdoing in that particular SFO scandal, many critics noted that she was not formally cleared of the broader allegations in Dirty Politics.
The Spinoff
RNZ
Many saw her behaviour as emblematic of “attack politics,” favouring leaks and smear campaigns over transparent and principled political discourse.
The Spinoff
This significantly damaged her reputation among voters and colleagues, contributing to public distrust.
• 2021 – Dramatic demotion of Simon Bridges (leading to her ousting as party leader)
On 24 November 2021, just before a caucus meeting, Collins stripped Simon Bridges of all his portfolios, citing a historic (five-year-old) “inappropriate comment” he had allegedly made at a party function.
The Guardian
RNZ
The move was widely viewed as a “caucus-blindsiding” — a unilateral decision without prior consultation with the party’s own MPs. Many in her own party saw it as a political manoeuvre against a rival rather than an act of principle.
community.scoop.co.nz
The Guardian
The backlash was swift — a vote of no confidence just hours later removed Collins from leadership. Many described the decision as “desperate,” “out of fear,” or as “ongoing dirty politics.”
RNZ
The Guardian
For many, this event epitomised her polarising leadership style and raised questions about fairness, due process, and internal party democracy.
• 2025 (as Minister) – Changes to Public Service survey: accused of “censorship”
In 2025, as a minister, Collins’ office was reported to have been closely involved in rewriting a Public Service Commission sector-wide survey. Among the changes: removal of questions about religion, te reo Māori, and “rainbow identities” (i.e. LGBTQ+), while adding questions about whether the public service delivered “value for money.”
RNZ
Critics — including the Public Service Association union — argued this amounted to ideological interference in what should be an impartial, apolitical public service. They called it “censorship.”
RNZ
Even supporters of public-service reform saw it as a risky move: it struck many as portraying diversity and identity as less relevant than “economic value,” which outraged parts of society concerned about inclusion and representation.
Given New Zealand’s diverse society and long debates about inclusion, this move was strongly unpopular with many sectors and communities.
• General leadership style: “attack politics,” divisiveness, and internal dissent
Many analysts and commentators have argued that Collins’ political modus operandi leans heavily on “attack politics” — leaks, gossip, public smears, and harsh rhetoric — rather than consensus-building or principled compromise.
The Spinoff
RNZ
According to insiders and former colleagues, this style has made her unpopular within her own party as much as with the public.
The Spinoff
The Guardian
Several assessments (including from within her party) suggested that her personal ambition and aggressive approach often overshadowed effective long-term strategy — making her a polarising, if not divisive, figure.
The coverup continues