Rejection of NCP request

Subject: Formal Response – Transfer of Complaint 36

Date: 11th July 2025

Dear Mr Southalan,

Thank you for your letter. I am writing to formally respond.

I do not accept transfer of this complaint to the US NCP.

My position remains unchanged: this case must be transferred to the Netherlands NCP by Tuesday, 15 July at 5:00 PM AEST.

My reasons are clear, documented, and in line with OECD procedural guidance:

The US is home to the primary multinational enterprise named in the complaint.

That constitutes a direct conflict of interest and disqualifies the US NCP from being seen as impartial or independent under OECD expectations.

This complaint has already been escalated internationally.

The ICC has received my formal submission under Article 15 of the Rome Statute. Any national NCP attempting to take jurisdiction over this case while simultaneously protecting a domestic corporation would not meet the threshold of legitimacy required for international coordination.

Germany is also conflicted.

The second company named in the complaint is headquartered there. That leaves the Netherlands as the only credible and neutral NCP.

Delay is not neutral.

My deadline of 16 July reflects the months of obstruction I have already documented. If this case is not transferred by that time, I will record the failure and notify all relevant bodies, including the OECD Investment Committee, ICC, UN, and selected international media.

Good faith is not submission to silence.

Citing “good faith” as a reason to remain quiet while state and corporate actors delay, deny, or distort is unacceptable. My public statements have been factual, evidence-based, and aligned with OECD transparency principles.

I expect written confirmation that the Netherlands NCP will take the lead on this complaint by 5:00 PM AEST, Tuesday 16 July 2025. If this does not occur, I will treat your inaction as formal obstruction and include it in my public record and ICC documentation.

Warm Agent Orange Burns regards,

Danielle Stevens

We will always be a child of a Vietnam Veteran

Dear Ms Stevens

I have now consulted the National Contact Points (NCPs) of Germany and the United States of America. On the information I have to date, it is my preliminary assessment that this complaint should be transferred from the AusNCP to the US NCP.

In accordance with the AusNCP’s procedures, I am writing to seek your views before I decide whether this transfer would be appropriate. I recognise you have already provided some views, including in your email of 8 July that the Netherlands NCP should handle this case. I ask, nonetheless, that you please read the attached letter and respond to that by 28 July.

Separate to the question of potential transfer, I wish to respond to recent emails to the AusNCP and other NCPs, and your proposed actions regarding a 15 July deadline. You of course have a right to communicate with any organisation and make public statements. I do not seek to prevent that. I do, however, urge you to consider the question of good faith in the OECD Guidelines process and the implications of that.

The AusNCP Procedures specify that we expect all participants in the AusNCP process to engage in good faith. Among other elements, good faith includes:

refraining from misrepresenting the issues and the process, particularly in public communications; and

genuinely engaging in the proceedings with a view to finding an OECD Guideline–compatible solution to the issues raised.

The ‘definition’ of good faith reflects how that is understood in the OECD Guidelines (eg. The OECD Guidelines 2023 - Implementation Procedures, Commentaries, [10f] and [26]). Therefore other NCPs will also have a similar understanding and expectation of the process. There have been cases where an NCP has decided to close proceedings, because they consider the notifier (complainant) is not acting in good faith. In such cases the NCP may then make no statement on the issues of the case and the company’s consistency with the Guidelines.

I disagree with your view that various NCPs you have identified (including the AusNCP) are ‘conflicted’ because of actions you attribute to their governments.

I also disagree with your statement that any omission by the AusNCP or others to do something before 15 July constitutes ‘undue delay and procedural obstruction’ and that ‘Delay is no longer neutral — it’s complicit’. I assure you that the AusNCP, US NCP and Germany NCP have been engaging diligently in relation to this matter. I have endeavoured to progress that engagement, and keep you informed of its progress. If there is a particular reason for greater urgency, please let me know. I note your complaint focusses on the actions of companies in the production and use of Agent Orange in the 1960s and their responses since that time. You contend your father’s exposure around 1970 caused congenital harms which you suffer. These are serious issues which I am carefully examining. As previously stated by the AusNCP Secretariat, I am truly sorry to hear about the difficulties you have faced. I recognise, too, that this AusNCP process has taken some time. The AusNCP follows a careful process, based on the OECD Guidelines and our AusNCP procedures, which necessitated liaising with other NCPs.

Yours sincerely

Mr John Southalan — Independent Examiner

Australian National Contact Point for Responsible Business Conduct

+61 2 6263 4410 | John.Southalan@ausncp.gov.au