Obstruction AusNCP
- agentorangechild
- Jul 14
- 3 min read
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.
Danielle Stevens
14/07/2025
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)
Comentários