Advance Notice

Subject: Advance Notice – OECD Complaint 36: Request for Transfer to Netherlands NCP

11th July 2025

Dear Netherlands NCP,

My name is Danielle Stevens, and I am the notifier of OECD Complaint 36, originally submitted through the Australian National Contact Point (AusNCP) on 19 May 2025.

I am writing today to provide formal advance notice that I will be requesting the Netherlands NCP to assume lead jurisdiction over this complaint, due to significant conflicts of interest involving the other NCPs consulted to date.

❌ 

Conflicted NCPs:

I have formally rejected transfer of the complaint to the United States NCP, as proposed by the AusNCP on 11 July. The United States is home to one of the named multinational enterprises — and is therefore structurally conflicted.

I have also ruled out the following NCPs:

• Australia – the host country of the complaint, but institutionally compromised due to historical denial and current obstruction

• New Zealand and Canada – both named in my wider legal case and unable to act impartially

• Germany – home to the second multinational enterprise named in the complaint, and equally conflicted

That leaves the Netherlands as the only credible, neutral NCP with the capacity to assess this matter fairly and independently.

📌 

Public Record:

All formal correspondence with the AusNCP, including:

• My 8 July request to transfer the case to the Netherlands

• The AusNCP’s 11 July response

• My formal 12 July refusal to accept transfer to the US NCP

…have been posted publicly on my website for transparency and your perusal:

🔗 https://agentorangechild.wixsite.com/agent-orange-child

📆 

Next Step:

If the AusNCP does not confirm transfer to the Netherlands NCP by Tuesday, 15 July 2025 at 5:00 PM AEST, I will submit the full complaint and transfer request directly to your office at 5:01 PM that day.

This email serves as early notice and documentation of the situation currently unfolding under the OECD Guidelines process.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you require clarification or supporting material in the interim.

Warm Agent Orange Burns regards,

Danielle Stevens

Australia 🇦🇺 

We will always be a child of a Vietnam Veteran

14/7/2025

Dear Ms Stevens

Thank you for providing your formal response to Independent Examiner John Southalan’s letter of 11 July.

Once John has also received responses from Dow and Bayer (which we expect by 28 July), he will consider your submission and that of the enterprises.

In accordance with the AusNCP’s procedures, the next step will then be:

“32. The examiner will draft a statement with the proposed outcome of the initial assessment to accept, reject or transfer the complaint. The statement will be an initial assessment statement if the complaint has been accepted, a final statement if the complaint has been rejected, or a transfer statement if the complaint is to be transferred to another NCP.

32.1. The draft statement will be provided to the [AusNCP Governance and Advisory] Board for review and advice. The examiner is not required to make changes in response to the views of the Board but may do so at their discretion.

32.2. After considering the views of the Board, the examiner will provide a copy of the draft statement with the outcome of the initial assessment to the notifier and the enterprise for their comment. The examiner is not required to make changes in response to the comments of the notifier or the enterprise, but may do so at their discretion.”

If you have any questions, please let us (the AusNCP Secretariat) know and we will endeavour to answer them.

Kind regards

The AusNCP Secretariat

Australian National Contact Point for Responsible Business Conduct (AusNCP)

secretariat@ausncp.gov.au | ausncp.gov.au

14/7/2025

Dear AusNCP Secretariat,

This correspondence confirms that Australia no longer has legal or procedural authority to make decisions regarding OECD Case 36. As per the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Procedural Guidance, I have lawfully and explicitly removed the AusNCP from handling this complaint due to clear and documented conflicts of interest, prolonged delay, and a pattern of institutional obstruction.

Under the Procedural Guidance, National Contact Points must act in a manner that is impartial, predictable, equitable, and compatible with the Guidelines. The AusNCP has violated all four principles, including:

Impartiality: Allowing John Southalan — a government-funded barrister operating under the Attorney-General’s Department — to lead a complaint involving government and corporate wrongdoing.

Predictability: Failing to provide clear timelines, outcomes, or responses to serious allegations of human rights abuses and corporate complicity in crimes against humanity.

Equitability: Giving Bayer and Dow extended time and power over the timeline, while ignoring the rights of the victim — the notifier — who is acting in accordance with international law.

Compatibility with the Guidelines: Refusing to address violations involving environmental harm, failure to disclose, consumer safety breaches, and international human rights treaties.

You do not have the authority to continue assessing this complaint. The jurisdiction was formally transferred to the Netherlands National Contact Point and reported to the OECD Investment Division in Paris. Any attempt by Mr Southalan to issue a statement after this transfer is not only legally invalid, it may constitute continued interference in an internationally recognised case involving war crimes against children.

If the AusNCP Secretariat or Mr Southalan issues a decision in defiance of the jurisdictional transfer, I reserve the right to submit this interference to the OECD, ICC, and public record as further evidence of institutional obstruction and procedural bad faith.

The case has moved on. You are no longer in control.