When Public Shame Replaces Due Process
There’s a dangerous illusion at the heart of New Zealand’s health complaints process: that because the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) is not a court, it doesn’t wield legal power.
But for the practitioners caught in its crosshairs — especially those who are publicly named — the consequences are every bit as real, as permanent, and as destructive as a formal conviction.
The HDC is, by design, an administrative body. Its role is to receive complaints, assess standards of care, and make findings about possible breaches of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. But despite having no judicial authority, no cross-examination, and no court of record, the HDC still has the unilateral power to publish a practitioner’s name — online, in media, and in public reports — without appeal, context, or proportional review.
This isn’t justice.
It’s exposure.
Unlike the criminal system — where even those accused of serious crimes often receive name suppression until guilt is proven — the HDC offers no such restraint. In fact, a practitioner can be named even if no criminal act occurred, no charges were laid, and no independent tribunal reviewed the facts.
What’s worse: once a name is published, the damage is irreversible.
Search engines do not discern between “administrative process” and “guilty verdict.”
To the public, being named by the HDC is being found guilty — full stop.
That’s why this issue goes far beyond ethics.
It demands legal scrutiny.
Because when an administrative body is granted the power to cause permanent public harm — without judicial safeguards, procedural appeal, or proportional review — it crosses a line.
And when that line is crossed, reputation becomes collateral damage in a system that claims to protect fairness, but forgets to practise it.
How the HDC Naming Power Bypasses Legal Standards of Fairness and Proportionality
In the criminal justice system, the right to a fair trial is sacred. Accused individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, often shielded by interim name suppression until all evidence has been heard and a verdict has been reached. Even after conviction, permanent name suppression may be granted where naming would cause disproportionate harm.
This is not a soft approach.
It is a principled safeguard — based on the understanding that a person’s name, once tarnished in public, can never be fully restored.
But the HDC operates differently.
Despite being an administrative office, not a court of law, it bypasses those very protections. It publishes names without cross-examination. Without judicial oversight. Without appeal to a neutral third party. And crucially — without any proportionality test.
There is no framework to assess whether the naming is fair in relation to the alleged harm.
No weighting of evidence.
No examination of the public interest versus individual damage.
Just a unilateral decision to name — and a lifetime of consequences.
This is not accountability.
It is punitive theatre masquerading as transparency.
It punishes not only those who are found in breach of the Code, but also those who dare to defend themselves. Because in many cases, it is the act of resisting the narrative — providing context, disputing timelines, clarifying complexity — that leads to a decision to name. Not as a matter of public safety, but as a matter of institutional optics.
Worse still, the media often reports HDC decisions as though they were legal rulings — amplifying public outrage without explaining that these are administrative findings reached without cross-examination or judicial process.
This leaves the public misinformed.
It leaves practitioners defenceless.
And it leaves a stain that can never be scrubbed from the internet.
When Permanent Harm Is Caused by a Temporary Process
The Health and Disability Commissioner process is not a legal trial.
It is not bound by evidentiary rules.
It does not allow for full cross-examination.
And yet — its outcomes are made permanent in the most public way possible.
A report is published.
A name is listed.
And within days, it’s searchable on Google forever.
There is no process to appeal the naming.
No procedure for de-indexing a false or misleading report.
No oversight to ensure proportionality in how reputations are destroyed — and no statute of limitations on public perception.
This is a temporary administrative process creating lifelong professional ruin.
And unlike a criminal conviction, there is no formal acquittal, no expungement, no “not guilty” declaration to balance the record. Even if the practitioner did nothing illegal. Even if their clinical reasoning was sound. Even if the complaint was maliciously motivated or factually unstable — once your name appears in an HDC report, the damage is done.
That’s why these naming powers are not merely an ethical question.
They are a legal anomaly — one that violates the most basic principles of proportionality, justice, and natural fairness.
In one such case, a practitioner was publicly named despite the absence of any criminal charges, legal tribunal, or independent adjudication of the facts. There was no formal review process, no opportunity to contest the decision prior to publication, and no legal test applied to weigh the potential harm.
Despite this, the individual’s name, career, and professional reputation were placed into the public domain as though a proven offence had occurred — when in reality, the finding was an administrative conclusion based on documents, interpretations, and procedural gaps.
This is not due process.
It is reputational harm delivered without legal foundation.
When naming becomes a substitute for evidence — and when guilt is implied through exposure rather than proven through legal standards — the system ceases to be protective and becomes inherently punitive.
What Needs to Change
The HDC’s naming powers are not just a policy issue.
They are a constitutional failure — granting an administrative body the ability to inflict permanent, public, reputational harm without judicial oversight, proportionality review, or legal appeal.
This is unsustainable in a free society.
And it must change.
1. Legislative Review of the HDC’s Naming Powers
Parliament must undertake a formal review of how, when, and why the HDC is allowed to publish the names of practitioners.
This should include:
A. A proportionality test aligned with legal standards
Every decision to name a practitioner should undergo a formal assessment to weigh public interest against personal and professional harm. This must include severity of the alleged breach, the likelihood of ongoing risk, and the long-term reputational impact — just as would be required in defamation or suppression hearings.
B. Independent legal oversight before any public release
Naming must not be left to the discretion of internal investigators. A legally qualified and independent decision-maker should review all naming recommendations before publication. This ensures that naming decisions are made with due process, legal expertise, and impartial judgment.
C. Mechanisms for appeal, correction, and removal from public record
Practitioners must have a clear and accessible pathway to challenge being named — before and after publication. This should include the right to present counter-evidence, request corrections, or seek removal of identifying details from publicly archived reports if new facts emerge or procedural flaws are found.
D. Restrictions on naming when no criminal offence or negligence has been established by a court or tribunal
If a practitioner has not been found guilty by a legal authority, their name should be protected by default. Administrative findings — especially those based on interpretation rather than law — should not trigger irreversible public exposure. Where no crime or confirmed negligence exists, anonymity should be the standard, not the exception.
E. Transparent criteria for when public naming is necessary
The HDC must publish detailed guidelines explaining when naming will be considered, what factors increase the likelihood of naming, and what safeguards exist. This ensures consistency, prevents arbitrary decisions, and builds trust in the integrity of the process.
F. A time-bound review process for published names
Even if a name is initially published, there must be a built-in review period — e.g., after 12 months — to determine whether the continued publication serves any ongoing public interest. If it does not, the practitioner’s name should be anonymised or removed.
G. Privacy impact assessments prior to publication
Before any name is published, the HDC must complete a formal Privacy Impact Assessment to evaluate the likelihood and scale of digital harm, online harassment, professional loss, and reputational damage — especially in small communities or high-stigma sectors like mental health.
H. Consistency with other regulatory bodies and the criminal justice system
Any decision to name must be benchmarked against the standards used by other regulatory and legal bodies, including Medical Council NZ, NZ Law Society, and the criminal courts. If those bodies would suppress the name under similar conditions, so should the HDC.
Administrative findings should not carry criminal-level consequences without criminal-level safeguards.
2. Clear Legal Separation Between “Administrative Findings” and “Guilt”
Public reports must explicitly distinguish between legal wrongdoing and administrative breach.
Too often, HDC language blurs this distinction — creating public confusion and media misrepresentation. Naming should only occur where there is a clear and compelling public safety concern, not to reinforce institutional credibility.
3. Reputational Safeguards for Low-Risk or Disputed Cases
Practitioners who have not committed a crime, and who present no ongoing danger to the public, must have the right to protect their identity.
This mirrors the criminal system, where even serious allegations are frequently subject to name suppression. The public interest in safety must always be balanced against the private right to dignity, due process, and long-term fairness.
4. Retrospective Right to Challenge or Remove Published Names
There must be a retrospective mechanism for those already named to request removal — especially in cases where new evidence emerges, the findings are later contested, or the reputational damage far outweighs the severity of the alleged breach.
This is not about hiding misconduct.
It’s about recognising that administrative processes are fallible — and no one should be condemned forever based on a process that lacks the structure, safeguards, and scrutiny of the judicial system.
Because once a name is made public, the internet never forgets.
But the law should remember what fairness looks like.
For those unfamiliar with the background of my situation, I’ve shared the full story in this detailed statement:
👉 Neil Oliver Counsellor – The Truth Behind the HDC Complaint