The Government has received the final report of the inquiry into the handling of the Tom Phillips case, Attorney-General Chris Bishop has confirmed (RNZ).

The inquiry, carried out by Justice Simon Moore KC, examined whether all practicable steps were taken by government agencies to ensure the welfare and safety of Phillips' children. It was announced in November 2025 by then Attorney-General Judith Collins and was required to deliver its final report with recommendations by 21 July 2026 (RNZ).

The report met that deadline. Bishop said on receipt that it is "highly likely to require redactions" before it can be released publicly, and that his aim was to publish it by around mid-August. He was unable to say whether there would be a legislative response to the inquiry's findings. If legislation were required, Bishop said, it would be "highly unlikely" it could be passed before the election (RNZ).

The inquiry's terms of reference explicitly excluded any findings on judicial decisions. It also held no public hearings, conducting its work entirely in private (RNZ).

Tom Phillips died following a shootout with police on 8 September 2025, after 1,358 days in the bush with his children. During that shootout, Phillips shot a police officer several times (RNZ).

The path to the inquiry was signalled early. At the Post-Cabinet press conference on 15 September 2025, roughly a week after the fatal shootout, the Prime Minister indicated there would be scope for a Government inquiry into the case (Beehive). By 13 October, the Prime Minister told the same format that the Government had been taking advice on a potential inquiry and expected to be able to discuss it soon (Beehive). On 3 November, the Government was still in the process of setting it up (Beehive). Later that month, Phillips' family welcomed the announcement of the inquiry (RNZ).

The redactions Bishop referenced are a standard feature of reports involving children and operational police matters. The question is how much of the substance survives the process and whether the public version is enough to satisfy the scrutiny the case has attracted. Bishop's mid-August target gives roughly three to four weeks for that work, which is tight but not unusual for an inquiry of this scope.

Bishop's honesty about the legislative timeline is worth noting. By signalling that any law change would almost certainly not clear Parliament before the election, he is managing expectations early. That leaves the inquiry's recommendations in a holding pattern if they require statutory change; a future government, not this one, would carry them forward.

The exclusion of judicial decisions from the terms of reference is also significant. The public focus during the 1,358 days Phillips spent in the bush with his children was heavily on whether the Family Court and other judicial actors could or should have acted differently to remove the children from his care. Moore's inquiry was not tasked with answering that question. What it could examine is the conduct of the government agencies operating around those decisions: Police, Oranga Tamariki, and any others with welfare or safety obligations.

With no public hearings and a report that will arrive redacted, the inquiry was always going to face questions about how much daylight it lets in. The report's recommendations, once released, will be the measure of whether the Government treats this as a case closed or a case that exposed systemic gaps requiring a response. Bishop's inability to say whether legislation is needed suggests he has not yet settled that question himself, or is not prepared to pre-empt the report's publication.