POBoxA147SydneySouthNSW1235president@alhr.org.auwww.alhr.org.au25June2018MsVictoriaAndersonTheAustralianNationalContactPointc/-TheTreasuryLangtonCrescentCANBERRAACT2600Sentviaemail:ANCP@treasury.gov.au

DearMsAnderson,ALHRSubmissionontheAustralianOECDNationalContactPointProceduresAustralianLawyersforHumanRights(ALHR)isgratefulfortheopportunitytomakethissubmission in response to the Australian OECD National Contact Point’s (AusNCP)discussion paper dated 22May 2018 titled ‘Improving Specific Instance Procedures’(DiscussionPaper).

This submission is supplementary to ALHR’s 2017 Submission (2017 Submission) inresponsetothe2017IndependentReviewoftheAusNCP(IndependentReview).1

ALHR welcomes the AusNCP taking steps to improve the AusNCP’s Procedures, inresponse to the Independent Review report (Review Report),2which recommendedthe‘developmentandimplementationofrevisedoperatingproceduresbaseddirectlyontheGuidelinesandProceduralGuidance.’3However, while procedural change is welcome, if the AusNCP is to be effective andovercome its historically poor track record, it must be properly resourced andappropriatelystructured.Therefore,ALHRurgestheGovernmenttoimplementalltherecommendations in the Review Report, to allow the AusNCP to effectively fulfill itsmandateandreflectbestpractice.ALHRlooksforwardtocontinuingtoworkwiththeAusNCPtothisend. 1http://ausncp.gov.au/contactpoint/2017-review/2AlexNewton,IndependentReview:AustralianNationalContactPointundertheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,(2017),http://ausncp.gov.au/contactpoint/2017-review/(ReviewReport)2AlexNewton,IndependentReview:AustralianNationalContactPointundertheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,(2017),http://ausncp.gov.au/contactpoint/2017-review/(ReviewReport)3Recommendation3,ReviewReport,45

2

ALHR was established in 1993 and is a national network of Australian solicitors,barristers, academics, judicial officers and law students who practise and promoteinternational human rights law in Australia. ALHR has active and engaged National,StateandTerritorycommitteesandspecialistthematiccommittees.Throughadvocacy,media engagement, education, networking, research and training, ALHR promotes,practices and protects universally accepted standards of human rights throughoutAustraliaandoverseas.

If youwould like to discuss any aspect of this submission, please do not hesitate to contactKerryWeste,PresidentofALHR,byemailatpresident@alhr.org.au.

3

TableofContentsBackground ........................................................................................................ 4 Context for this submission .............................................................................. 4 Initial Assessment Stage ................................................................................... 6 InitialAssessmentForm ...................................................................................................... 6 InitialAssessmentCriteria ................................................................................................... 8 Response to Consultation Questions ............................................................ 10 Question1–Willtheproposedplanningstageofgoodofficesimprovethepredictabilityoftheprocessforthepartiesinvolved? ....................................................................................... 10 Question2–Arethereanyotherimprovementsthatcouldassisttheeffectivenessofthe‘goodoffices’stage? .................................................................................................................. 10 Question3–WhatisyourviewontheproposaltoshiftthemajorityoftheAusNCP’sexaminationresponsibilitiessotheyoccurafterthegoodofficesstage? ............................... 11 Question4–Arefurtherchangesneededtoimprovetheproceduresfortheconclusionstage? ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Question5–Willfollow-upprocessesimprovethetransparencyoftheAusNCP?Is12monthsanappropriatetimeframe? ............................................................................................... 13 Question6–DostakeholdersseevalueinhavingareviewmechanismaspartofanyfutureAusNCPstructure,andifso,inwhatform? ......................................................................... 16 Question7–Dostakeholdershaveanycommentsontheproposedtimeframes? ................. 17 Question8–Havestakeholdersfoundthisspecificinstancetrackingtoolvaluable? .............. 17 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 17 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 19

4

Background

1. TheAusNCPisestablishedundertheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises(Guidelines),whichprovide‘voluntaryprinciplesandstandardsforresponsiblebusinessconduct,’includinginrelationtoupholdinghumanrights,whichsignatorystates‘makeabindingcommitmenttoimplement’.4

2. SignatorystatestotheGuidelinesarerequiredtoestablishaNationalContactPoint(NCP).5TheroleoftheNCPistofurthertheeffectivenessoftheGuidelinesby:• helpingresolvecomplaints(called‘specificinstances’)aboutbreachesofthe

GuidelinesbyMNEs;and• promotingtheGuidelines.6

3. TheAusNCPisAustralia’smostimportantnon-judicialgrievancemechanismavailableforchallengingbreachesofhumanrightsperpetratedbymultinationalenterprises(MNEs)operatinginAustraliaandAustralianMNEsoperatingoverseas.

Contextforthissubmission4. TheDiscussionPaperposeseightConsultationQuestionsregardingproposalsfor

reformtotheAusNCPProcedures,being:

• Will theproposedplanningstageofgoodoffices improve thepredictabilityoftheprocessforthepartiesinvolved?

• Are there any other improvements that could assist the effectiveness of the‘goodoffices’stage?

• What is your view on the proposal to shift the majority of the AusNCP’sexaminationresponsibilitiessotheyoccurafterthegoodofficesstage?

• Are further changes needed to improve the procedures for the conclusionstage?

• Willfollow-upprocessesimprovethetransparencyoftheAusNCP?Is12monthsanappropriatetimeframe?

• DostakeholdersseevalueinhavingareviewmechanismaspartofanyfutureAusNCPstructure,andifso,inwhatform?

• Dostakeholdershaveanycommentsontheproposedtimeframes?• Havestakeholdersfoundthisspecificinstancetrackingtoolvaluable?

5. ThisSubmissionrespondstotheeightquestionsintheDiscussionPaper,andtothe

proposalsraisedintheDiscussionPaperinrelationtotheInitialAssessmentstageofthespecificinstanceprocess.

6. ALHR’sresponsesandrecommendationsinthisSubmissionaremadeinthecontextofarangeofstandardsforbestpracticebothintheGuidelinesandinthe

4Guidelines,PartI,Preface,Paragraph1,135OECD,TheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises(2011update),18.6OECDCouncil,AmendmentoftheDecisionoftheCouncilontheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,SectionI,at[1],inOECD,TheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises(OECDPublishing:2011version),68.

5

UnitedNationsGuidingPrinciplesforBusinessandHumanRights20117(UNGPs),whichtheAusNCPshouldbemeasuredagainsttodetermineifitiseffectivelycarryingoutitsmandate.

7. AsnotedinALHR’s2017Submission:

‘Since 20118theGuidelines have required thatNCPs’ complaint handling should beimpartial,predictable,equitableandcompatiblewiththeprinciplesandstandardsoftheGuidelines.’9NCPsarerequiredundertheGuidelinestooperateinamannerthatisvisible,accessible,transparentandaccountable.10…AustraliahasalsorecentlycommittedtotheimplementationoftheUNGPs,11whichexpressly underpin the 2011 expansion of the human rights obligations in theGuidelines.12TheUNGPsprovidethatcompanieshaveadutytorespecthumanrights(PillarI)andStateshaveadutytoprotecthumanrights(PillarII).Importantly,PillarIIIof theUNGPsalsorequiresstatestoensureaccesstoeffectiveremediesforhumanrightsviolations,throughjudicialandnon-judicialgrievancemechanisms(NJGM).

TheUNhasrecognisedNCPsasanimportantnon-judicialNJGM.13ThesuccessoftheANCPshouldthereforealsobejudgedagainsttheseven‘effectivenesscriteria’intheUNGPsthatactasbenchmarksagainstwhichallNJGMsshouldbe‘designed,revisedor assessed.’ 14 The criteria require that all NJGMs are legitimate, accessible,predictable, equitable, transparent, rights compatible and a source of continuouslearning.15’16

8. Inaddition,ALHR’ssubmissionalsodrawsuponthe2012NCPMediationManual17(MediationManual)referencedintheDiscussionPaper,whichtheAusNCPexplains

7UNSpecialRepresentativeoftheSecretary-Generalontheissueofhumanrightsandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusinessenterprises,‘GuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights:ImplementingtheUnitedNations“Protect,RespectandRemedy”Framework’UNDocHR/PUB/11/04andA/HRC/17/31(UnitedNations,2011)http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>TheUNHumanRightsCouncilendorsedtheUNGPsinresolution17/4of16June2011.8OECD,2011UpdateoftheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises:Comparativetableofchangesmadetothe2000text,(OECD:2011),87,999Guidelines,ProceduralGuidance,ChapterINationalContactPoints,PartC,ImplementationandSpecificInstance,7210Guidelines,CommentaryontheImplementationProceduresoftheOCEDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,ChapterICommentaryontheProceduralGuidanceforNCPs,Paragraph9,78;Guidelines,ProceduralGuidance,ChapterINationalContactPoints,7111SeeAustralia’sstatementtotheUNHumanRightsCouncilattheadoptionoftheReportoftheUPRWorkingGroupon17March2016https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/United-Nations-Human-Rights-Reporting/Documents/UPR-Adoption-Statement.pdfaccessathttps://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/United-Nations-Human-Rights-Reporting/Pages/Australias-Universal-Periodic-Review.aspx12OECD,TheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises(2011update),ChapterIVHumanRights,CommentaryonHumanRights,31;TradeUnionAdvisoryCouncil(TUAC),TheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises:RecommendationsforResponsibleBusinessConductinaGlobalContext-TradeUnionGuide,(TUAC:2012),p.4<http://www.tuacoecdmneguidelines.org/Docs/TradeUnionGuide.pdf>13UNSpecialRepresentativeoftheSecretary-Generalontheissueofhumanrightsandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusinessenterprises,‘GuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights:ImplementingtheUnitedNations“Protect,RespectandRemedy”Framework’UNDocHR/PUB/11/04andA/HRC/17/31,PartIIIAccesstoRemedy,Principle25,28(UnitedNations,2011)http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>TheUNHumanRightsCouncilendorsedtheUNGPsinresolution17/4of16June2011;BernadetteMaheandiran,‘CallingforClarity:HowUncertaintyUnderminestheLegitimacyoftheDisputeResolutionSystemUndertheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,’(2015)(20)HarvardNegotiationLawReview205,206and2010-11.See14Principle31,UNGPs15Principle31,UNGPs16ALHR’s2017Submission,417NCPMediationManual,ConsensusBuildingInstitute,July2012,http://www.oecdguidelines.nl/binaries/oecd-guidelines/documents/leaflet/2015/1/6/ncp-mediation-

6

was‘preparedbytheConsensusBuildingInstituteandsponsoredbytheNCPsoftheNetherlands,NorwayandtheUnitedKingdom.’18ALHRnotesthattheMediationManualwasspecificallyendorsedbytheAnnualReportontheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises2012:MediationandConsensusBuilding(2012OECDAnnualReport).19

InitialAssessmentStage

InitialAssessmentForm9. TheDiscussionPaperoutlinesanewrequirementthatspecificinstancesbe

submittedviaanonlineformintroducedon8February2018.20TheConsultationPapernotesthat‘thecomplaintsubmissionwillundergoavaliditytest,involvingareviewforcompletenessandacheckthatthecomplaintshouldbehandledbytheAusNCP’,21andthatthe‘onlineformwouldneedtobecompletedinfullforacomplaintsubmissiontobevalid.’22ALHRalsonotestheflowchartatthebackoftheDiscussionPaperidentifiesthatincompletesubmissionswillbeconsideredinvalidandrejected.

10. ALHRisconcernedthatthisrequirement,strictlyconstrued,placesanunnecessarybarriertoaccessingthespecificcomplaintmechanism,andisoutofstepwiththerequirementintheGuidelinesthatNCPsoperateinan‘accessible’manner.23AsnotedinALHR’s2017Submission,‘(c)omplainantsmayfaceawiderangeofbarrierstoaccessingtheNCPincludinglackofaccesstotechnical,technologicalandfinancialresources,languagedifferences,literacyissues,physicaldistancefromtheNCPandconcernsaboutreprisal.24’25

11. Someofthequestionsintheform,suchasthoseoutlinedbelow,requireand

presumealevelofunderstandingoftheOECDGuidelines,themediationprocess,andtheroleandlimitsoftheAusNCP,thatnotallcomplainantswillhave.Forexample:

WhatsectionsoftheOECDGuidelinesdoesthesubmissionrelateto?PleasedescribethesituationandhowtheissuesrelatetotheOECDGuidelines.Doyouwishtoparticipateinmediation?

12. ComplainantswithoutlegalorNGOrepresentationmaynotbeabletocompleteall

thequestionsintheformwithoutassistance.Therefore,theAusNCPProceduresshouldprovidethatpotentialcomplainantsshouldbegivenreasonableassistance

18DiscussionPaper,419https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/annual-report-on-the-oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises-2012_mne-2012-en#page4620DiscussionPaper,pp5-6.Theonlineformisaccessibleviathefollowingwebsite:https://ausncp.gov.au/specific-instances/submitting-a-complaint/.21DiscussionPaper,p5.22DiscussionPaper,p6.23Guidelines,CommentaryontheImplementationProceduresoftheOCEDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,ChapterICommentaryontheProceduralGuidanceforNCPs,Paragraph9,78;Guidelines,ProceduralGuidance,ChapterINationalContactPoints,7124Principle31,Commentary(b),UNGPs25ALHR’s2017Submission,11

7

bytheAusNCP,wherenecessary,tocompletetheformandpreparetheircomplaint.TheAusNCPshouldbepreparedtoraisedeficiencieswithcomplainants,andbegivenanopportunitytorectifytheircomplaint.ALHRalsoendorsesthesubmissionsbyotherstakeholdersthattheAusNCPshouldrefercomplainantswholackrepresentationinAustraliatocivilsocietyorganisationsortradeunions.

13. Inaddition,ALHR’s2017Submissionrecommendedthat:

‘TheANCP’swebsiteshouldalsobereviewedtoensureitprovidesclearerguidancetoprospectivecomplainantsabouthowtomakeacomplaint.ItshouldalsohaveinformationforMNEsaboutwhathumanrightsare,andhowtheymightbeabletoidentifyiftheyareinbreachofthehumanrightschapteroftheGuidelines…26Inordertodealequitablywithcomplaints,ANCPshouldconsidermeasuresundertakenbytheNorwegianandDutchNCPssuchas:• providingadvisoryservicestoprospectivecomplainants;27• providingtranslationservices,28andconsultantstovulnerablecomplainants.29’30

14. Toensuretheaccessibilityofthespecificinstanceprocess,theAusNCP’swebpage

‘Submitaspecificinstance’31wheretheformcurrentlysits,shouldbeupdatedtoprovidefurtherexplanationandguidancetopotentialcomplainantsandassistthemwiththeprocessofmakingacomplaint.TheNorwegianNCPprovidesanexampleofbestpracticeinthisregard.TheNorwegianNCPhasacomplaintformthatsitsontheNorwegianNCP’swebpage‘HowtoSubmitaComplaint’.32UnliketheequivalentAusNCPwebpageit:• explainsthatthosepreparingacomplaintcancontacttheNorwegianNCPwith

questionsaboutpreparingacomplaint;and• providesadditionalguidancetoapplicantsbywayoftwodocuments,the‘NCP

Guiding form for submitting complaints’ and ‘Advice to complainants fromOECDWatch’.

15. TheNorwegianNCPusestheword‘complaint’onitswebsiteratherthan‘specific

instance.’InALHR’sviewtheword‘complaint’ismoreaccessiblethantheterm‘specificinstance’forbothcomplainantsandbusinessstakeholders.

16. TheNorwegianNCP’swebsiteprovidesarangeofguidance,explanationsandresourcesforbusinessandcomplainantsabouttheGuidelines,specificinstances,OECDsectoralguidance,alongwithlinkstorelatedresources.ALHRrecommends

26ALHRSubmission2017,1027VéroniqueVanDerPlancke,ValérieVanGoethem,GenevièvePaul,ElinWrzoncki,MarionCadier,CorporateAccountabilityforHumanRightsAbuses:AGuideforVictimsandNGOsonRecourseMechanisms(3rdEdition),(FIDH:May2016),40828RobertaPinamontiandPeterNestor,GrievanceMechanismsintheDutchHardCoalSupplyChainAnassessmentoftheeffectivenessofthreegrievancemechanismsagainsttheUNGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights,(BSR:2014),2029VéroniqueVanDerPlancke,ValérieVanGoethem,GenevièvePaul,ElinWrzoncki,MarionCadier,CorporateAccountabilityforHumanRightsAbuses:AGuideforVictimsandNGOsonRecourseMechanisms(3rdEdition),(FIDH:May2016),408referencingOeCDWatch,NorwegianSupportCommitteeforWesternSaharavsSjovik,http://oecdwatch.org/cases/Case_24730ALHR’s2017Submission,1131http://ausncp.gov.au/specific-instances/submitting-a-complaint/32http://www.responsiblebusiness.no/en/dialogue-and-mediation/how-to-submit-a-complaint/

8

thattheAusNCPincreasetheaccessibilityofthespecificinstanceprocessbymodellingtheAusNCP’swebsite’scontentontheNorwegianNCP’swebsite.Further,ALHRsupportsinformationbeingpresentedinvisualformincludingtheuseofinfographics,videoandanimation.

17. Inaddition,ALHRreiteratesRecommendation3(k)oftheReviewReport,thatthe

AusNCP’swebsiteandProceduresshouldbetranslatedintothemostcommonlanguagesofcomplainantsfilingspecificinstanceswiththeAusNCP.33

InitialAssessmentCriteria18. ALHR’snotestheproposalatpage6oftheDiscussionPapertochangetheInitial

AssessmentcriteriaintheAusNCPGuidelines(atparagraph20)toamorestreamlinedtest,setoutbelow:

1)Whatistheidentityofthenotifyingpartyconcernedanditsinterestinthematter?2)IstheissueplausibleandrelatedtotheapplicationoftheGuidelines?3) Is there a clear and relevant linkbetween theenterprise’s activities and the issueraised?4) Would acceptance of the specific instance contribute to the purposes andeffectivenessoftheGuidelines?’

19. ALHRcommendstheintentofthechangestotheinitialassessmentcriteria,which

appeartotakeintoaccountcriticismaroundthemannerinwhichtheAusNCPhasapplied(orfailedtoapply)theinitialassessmentinthepast,resultinginanunreasonablyhighthresholdforacceptanceofcomplaints.

20. InALHR’sview,theinitialassessmentcriteriaatparagraph20ofthecurrentAusNCPProceduresshouldbeupdatedtodirectlyreflecttheinitialcriteriasetoutintheCommentaryontheGuidelines.34Thatis,byaddingthewordsunderlinedbelowtothecurrentwordinginparagraph20oftheAusNCPProcedures:

InitialAssessment25.Inmakinganinitialassessmentofwhethertheissueraisedmeritsfurtherexamination,theNCPwillneedtodeterminewhethertheissueisbonafideandrelevanttotheimplementationoftheGuidelines.Inthiscontext,theNCPwilltakeintoaccount:

• theidentityofthepartyconcernedanditsinterestinthematter.• whethertheissueismaterialandsubstantiated.• whether there seems tobea linkbetween theenterprise’sactivitiesand the

issueraisedinthespecificinstance.• therelevanceofapplicablelawandprocedures,includingcourtrulings.• how similar issues have been, or are being, treated in other domestic or

internationalproceedings.• whether the consideration of the specific issue would contribute to the

purposesandeffectivenessoftheGuidelines.

33ReviewReport,4634Guidelines,CommentaryontheImplementationProceduresoftheOCEDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,ChapterICommentaryontheProceduralGuidanceforNCPs,Paragraph25,82

9

21. AssubmittedbyHumanRightsLawCentre(HRLC),thisapproachwillensurethat

theoverridingtestiswhethertheissue‘meritsfurtherexamination’andis‘bonafideandrelevanttotheimplementationoftheGuidelines’.Thisapproachwillalsoassistinmaintaining‘functionalequivalence’35betweenNCPsandalignswithRecommendation3oftheReviewReport.

22. Inaddition,ALHRalsoagreeswithHRLC’ssubmissionthattheupdatedinitialassessmentcriteriashouldbeaccompaniedbycommentarythatexplainshowtheinitialassessmentcriteriashouldbeinterpretedandapplied.ALHRnotestheDiscussionPaper’ssuggestionthattheinitialassessmentofacomplaintshouldturnonwhetherthecomplaintis‘plausible,’andthatthecomplaintdoesnotneedtobe‘substantiated’inatechnicallegalsenseattheinitialassessmentstage.ThisapproachaccordswithOECDWatch’scommentarythat:

‘ThesubstantiationstandardintheProceduralGuidanceisintendedtoestablishwhetheracomplaintisbonafide,andshouldonlyrequirethatthefactualallegationsbeplausible.Dr.RoelNieuwenkamp,ChairoftheOECDWorkingPartyforResponsibleBusinessConduct,hasstatedthatthe“materialandsubstantiated”standardwasintendedtopreventfrivolouscomplaintswithoutsettinganunreasonablethresholdforofferinggoodoffices.32”[Footnote32:DraftsummaryrecordofthejointmeetingoftheWPRBCandNCPsheldon4/12/2014,OECD.]…RecommendationNCPsshouldmaintainareasonablestandardofsubstantiationattheinitialassessmentphase,aimedatpreventingfabricatedorfrivolousclaims,whilepromotingtheuseoftheNCP’svoluntarygoodofficeswhereverpossibletoresolvebonafideclaims.TheOECDInvestmentCommitteeandWorkingPartyonResponsibleBusinessConductshouldrevisetheProceduralGuidancetoincludeadefinitionof“substantiated”thatclarifiesthatthisstandardismeanttoassesswhetherthefactualallegationsareplausibleandthatlegalisticproofoftheclaimsraisedisnotnecessary.36’

[Emphasisadded]

23. SimilarlytheMediationManualencouragesNCPstotakea‘problemsolvingapproach’totheinitialassessmentphase,which‘seekstoidentifyasmanyopportunitiesaspossibleforNCPstoimplementthespiritoftheGuidelines.’37

24. Inaddition,ALHRendorsesHRLC’srecommendationthattheCommentarytotheGuidelinesatparagraph26regardingparallelproceedingsbeincorporatedintotheAusNCPProcedures:

‘Whenassessingthesignificanceforthespecificinstanceprocedureofotherdomesticorinternationalproceedingsaddressingsimilarissuesinparallel,NCPsshouldnotdecidethatissuesdonotmeritfurtherconsiderationsolelybecauseparallelproceedingshavebeenconducted,areunderwayorareavailabletotheparties

35Guidelines,ProceduralGuidance,ChapterINationalContactPoints,7136CaitlinDaniel,JosephWilde-Ramsing,KrisGenovese,VirginiaSandjojo,‘RemedyRemainsRare:Ananalysisof15yearsofNCPcasesandtheircontributiontoimproveaccesstoremedyforvictimsofcorporatemisconduct’(OECDWatch:June2015),2637MediationManual,22

10

concerned.NCPsshouldevaluatewhetheranofferofgoodofficescouldmakeapositivecontributiontotheresolutionoftheissuesraisedandwouldnotcreateseriousprejudiceforeitherofthepartiesinvolvedintheseotherproceedingsorcauseacontemptofcourtsituation.Inmakingsuchanevaluation,NCPscouldtakeintoaccountpracticeamongotherNCPsand,whereappropriate,consultwiththeinstitutionsinwhichtheparallelproceedingisbeingorcouldbeconducted.’38

25. ALHRalsoreiteratesRecommendations3(b),(d)and(e)oftheReviewReport,that

therevisedAusNCPProceduresshould:

• clarify whichMNEs will be encompassed by the ANCP’s specific instanceprocedures;39and

• includeprovision forhostingan introductorymeetingwithpartiesafteracomplaint has been lodged, but before the initial assessment has beencompleted. This provides an opportunity to gather additional materialrequiredtoassessthecomplaint,andtoclarifytheparties’expectationsoftheAusNCPprocess;40

• includeaprovision forpublishing initialassessmentdecisions,andoutlinethecircumstanceswherethiswouldnotbepossible(forexample:riskstocomplainants,seriousconfidentialityconcerns).41

26. Giventheextensivecriticismoftheapplicationoftheinitialassessmentcriteriaby

theAusNCPinthepast,andtheimportanceoftheinitialassessmentinensuringtheaccessibilityofthespecificinstancemechanism,ALHRencouragestheAusNCPtoconsultwithstakeholdersaboutthewordingofthedraftcommentaryontheinterpretationoftherevisedinitialassessmentcriteriaintheAusNCPProcedures.

ResponsetoConsultationQuestions

Question1–Willtheproposedplanningstageofgoodofficesimprovethepredictabilityoftheprocessforthepartiesinvolved?27. Yes.ALHRwelcomestheformalintroductionofaplanningstageaspartofthegood

offices,withaviewtoimprovingthepredictabilityofthespecificinstanceprocess.ALHRnotesthatthisapproachreflectsthe‘Pre-planningmeeting’preparationrecommendedbytheMediationManual,butnotthemoresubstantive‘StakeholderAssessment’alsorecommended,whereneeded,bytheMediationManual(discussedbelow).

Question2–Arethereanyotherimprovementsthatcouldassisttheeffectivenessofthe‘goodoffices’stage?28. ALHRsupportssubmissionfromTransparencyInternational(andother

stakeholders)thatatransparencypolicyshouldbedeveloped,withinputfrom

38 Guidelines,CommentaryontheImplementationProceduresoftheOCEDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,ChapterICommentaryontheProceduralGuidanceforNCPs,Paragraph26,83 39Recommendation3(b),ReviewReport,4540Recommendation3(d),ReviewReport,4641Recommendation3(e),ReviewReport,46

11

stakeholders,toclarifythepositionontheconfidentialityofinformationprovidedduringthespecificinstanceprocess.ALHRnotesthecurrentpositionintheAusNCP’sProceduresatparagraph16that‘unlessagoodcaseismadeforinformationtobewithheld,allinformationandevidencereceivedbytheANCPmaybesharedwiththeparties,’reflectsthecorrectstartingpointforatransparencypolicy.

29. ALHRreiteratesitsrecommendationsaroundtheneedtoaccommodatevulnerable

complainants(outlinedatparagraphs10and12above).Inaddition,assubmittedbyALHRinits2017Submissionandbyotherstakeholders,whereappropriate,theAusNCPshouldberesourcedtotraveltothesitecountrytoconductitsmediationorexaminationfunctions,orforcomplainant’straveltobefunded,inordertoensuretheaccessibilityandequitabilityofthespecificinstanceprocessforvulnerablecomplainants.

30. ALHRsupportsthediscussionintheReviewReportaoundtheimportanceof

ensuringthatAusNCPstaffandmediatorshave(or,havetheoptiontobringin)specificsubjectmatterexpertise,includinginrelationtotheapplicationoftheGuideline’schapteronhumanrights.42

Question3–WhatisyourviewontheproposaltoshiftthemajorityoftheAusNCP’sexaminationresponsibilitiessotheyoccurafterthegoodofficesstage?31. ALHRwelcomestheshiftoftheNCP’sexaminationresponsibilitiesawayfromthe

initialassessmentphase.InALHR’sviewthischangereflectstheintentionoftheGuidelinesandwillfacilitatefasterandmoreeffectivespecificinstancesprocessesandoutcomes.

32. However,giventhelikelypowerandinformationimbalancebetweentheparties,theAusNCPshouldstillhavetheflexibilitytoundertakeinvestigationsduringthe‘goodoffices’stage,ifneeded,inparticularwithaviewtomakingthemediationmoreeffective.Thiswouldgobeyondthe‘planning’describedintheDiscussionPaper,whichisprimarilyprocedural.

33. Theconceptof‘goodoffices’iswiderthanjustmediation,andaccommodatestheaboveapproach,asdoesactualNCPpractice.43ThisapproachisalsoreflectedintheMediationManual,whichenvisagesbotha‘Pre-Mediationmeetings’butalso(ifnecessary)amuchmoredetailed‘StakeholderAssessment’processwithextensiveinterviewspriortomediationtohelpprioritiseandframetheissues.44The2012OECDAnnualReportendorsestheMediationManualasa‘usefultool’andspecificallyoutlinesthe‘pre-planning,’‘stakeholderassessment’andmediationprocesses.45

42ReviewReport,3343Guidelines,ProceduralGuidance,ChapterINationalContactPoints,7244MediationManual,28-50452012OECDAnnualReport,5-49

12

Question4–Arefurtherchangesneededtoimprovetheproceduresfortheconclusionstage?

34. Yes.TheAusNCPProceduresshouldbeamendedatparagraphs52and53toensure

thatwheremediationfails,oriftheMNErefusestoparticipateinthemediationprocess,theAusNCP‘will’(not‘may’)makeadetermationaboutwhethertherehasbeenabreachoftheGuidelines.ThischangewouldgiveeffecttoRecommendation3(f)inthe2017IndependentReviewReport.46

35. TherationalebehindthisrecommendationisoutlinedinALHR’s2017Submission,

whichnotesthatthecurrentAusNCPProceduresprovide:

‘…that ifmediationfailstheANCPwillexaminethecomplaintfurther,collectfurtherinformation and evidence and ‘maymake a statement as towhether theGuidelineshavebeenbreached.’47…TheANCP’spastfailuretodatetomakeadeterminationaboutwhetherthere has been a breach of the Guidelines where mediation fails, exacerbates thepowerimbalancebetweenpartiestocomplaints.WithoutthepossibilitythattheANCPmaymakeanindependentdeterminationofanMNE’scompliancewiththeGuidelines,the complaints process is weak. 48 The ANCP’s approach gives MNEs a perverseincentive to refuse to engage in mediation, and means that only those complaintsamenable to mediated resolution are dealt with to the point of resolution by theANCP.49AnadverseNCPfindingagainstanMNE(anditsattendantreputationalrisk)hasbeenrecognised as a deterrent to breaching the Guidelines and a form of remedy forcomplainants.50For example, the Norwegian NCP’s OECD Peer Review noted thatMNEs said that avoiding a compliance determinationmotivated their involvement inthe NCP mediation process. 51 OECD Watch’s research has found that 77% ofcomplaints toNCPs resulting ina formof remedy ‘wereproducedbyNCPs thathavedemonstrated that they will make determinations of non-compliance with theGuidelinesifmediationfails.’52TheANCP’sfailuretomakeadeterminationaboutwhethertherehasbeenabreachofthe Guidelineswheremediation fails or anMNE refuses to engage in the complaint

46Recommendation3(f):Includeprovisionforissuingadeterminationonaspecificinstancewheremediationhaseitherbeenunsuccessful,oroneorbothpartieshaverefusedtoparticipateinthemediationprocess.47AustralianGovernment,‘ProceduresforDealingwithComplaintsBroughtUndertheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,’AUSNCP(2017)http://www.ausncp.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=ancp/complaints.htmaccessed16July201748TradeUnionAdvisoryCouncil(TUAC),TheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises:RecommendationsforResponsibleBusinessConductinaGlobalContext-TradeUnionGuide,(TUAC:2012),44<http://www.tuacoecdmneguidelines.org/Docs/TradeUnionGuide.pdf>49OCEDWatch,AssessmentoftheNCPPerformanceinthe2013-2014ImplementationCycle:OCEDWatchSubmissiontothe2014AnnualMeetingoftheNationalContactPoints,(June2014),19-20http://www.oecdwatch.org/publications-en/Publication_4090/50OchoaSanchez,‘TherolesandPowersoftheOECDNationalContactPoints,’(2014)84NordicJournalofInternationalLaw89,116.51Seealso,CaitlinDaniel,JosephWilde-Ramsing,KrisGenovese,VirginiaSandjojo,‘RemedyRemainsRare:Ananalysisof15yearsofNCPcasesandtheircontributiontoimproveaccesstoremedyforvictimsofcorporatemisconduct’(OECDWatch:June2015),44referencing(atfootnote86)InterviewwithAstridGadeNielsen,HeadofCommunications,ArlaFoods(11May2015);interviewwithAukjeBerden,GroupCSRManager,Nidera(18May2015);OECDWatch,A‘4x10’PlanforWhyandHowtoUnlockthePotentialoftheOECDGuidelines:Abriefingforpolicymakers(June2016),3referencingNorwegianPeerReviewFinalReport,2012,26.52CaitlinDaniel,JosephWilde-Ramsing,KrisGenovese,VirginiaSandjojo,‘RemedyRemainsRare:Ananalysisof15yearsofNCPcasesandtheircontributiontoimproveaccesstoremedyforvictimsofcorporatemisconduct’(OECDWatch:June2015),44

13

process, diminishes the effectiveness of the Guidelines 53 and does not reflectAustralia’s commitmentunder theUNGPs to facilitatebothaccountabilityandaccesstonon-judicial remedy, forcorporatehumanrightsviolations. WheremediationofacomplaintfailsoranMNEfailstoengageintheANCPcomplaintshandlingprocess,theANCPshouldberesourcedtoinvestigatethecomplaintandpublishadeterminationonwhether theMNEhasbreached theGuidelines in theANCP’sFinal Statementon thecomplaint.’54[Emphasisadded]

Question5–Willfollow-upprocessesimprovethetransparencyoftheAusNCP?Is12monthsanappropriatetimeframe?36. ALHRwelcomestheAusNCP’sintentiontobeginimplementingthefollowup

mechanismsatparagraphs56and57ofAusNCPProcedures.Thefollowupmechanismisessentialforfacilitatingeffectiveremedy,ensuringthetransparencyofthespecificinstanceprocess,andmaintainingtheconfidenceofstakeholders.InALHR’sviewthereareanumberofwaysinwhichthisimportantaspectofthespecificinstanceprocesscouldbeimprovedandsupported.

37. ThecurrentAusNCPProceduresprovideatparagraph56that:

‘(w)here the Final Statement includes recommendations to the company, it mayspecify a date by which both parties are asked to provide the AusNCP with asubstantiated update on the company’s progress towards implementing theserecommendations.’[Emphasisadded]

38. TheAusNCPProceduresprovidefurtheratparagraph57that:

‘(t)heAusNCPwillthenprepareaFollowupStatementreflectingtheparties’response.The AusNCP will also ask the parties to send factual comments on the Follow UpStatementwithin 10workingdays. TheAusNCPmay then incorporate anynecessaryfactual changes before sending the finalised FollowUp Statement to theparties andpublishingthefinalFollowupStatementontheAusNCP’swebsite.’

39. ALHRagreeswiththeDiscussionPaperthat12monthswouldgenerallybeanappropriatetimeframeforfollowupontheimplementationofAusNCPrecommendations.However,flexibilityshouldbemaintainedtoaccommodatedifferentcircumstances,forexamplewhereurgentchangestoMNEpracticeorremediationarerecommended,orwhereanothertimeframeisagreedbetweentheparties.

40. TherearearangeofweaknessesinthefollowupmechanismintheAusNCPProcedures.First,theAusNCPProceduresshouldbeamendedatparagraph56sothatafollowupdate‘will’(not‘may’)bespecifiedintheFinalStatement.

41. Next,theCommentaryontheGuidelinesprovidesthatNCPscanfollowupon

recommendationsmadeaspartofaFinalStatement,and,withagreementofthe

53OchoaSanchez,‘TherolesandPowersoftheOECDNationalContactPoints,’(2014)84NordicJournalofInternationalLaw89,107-116.54ALHR’s2017Submission,12

14

partiesNCPscanfollowupontheimplementationofmediatedagreements.55However,theAusNCPProceduresonlyprovideforfollowupofAusNCPrecommendations.Thisprovidesapotential“out”forMNEsintheGuidelines.Therefore,ALHRagreeswithRecommendation3(j)oftheReviewReportthattheProceduresshouldbeamendedsothatwhereamediatedoutcomeisreached,theAusNCPProceduressetoutaprocessandtimelinefortheAusNCPtofollowuptheimplementationoftheagreement.56

42. AnotherweaknessofthefollowupmechanismintheAusNCPProceduresisthatit

reliesonwrittensubstantiationbythepartiesthattheAusNCP’srecommendationshavebeenimplemented.Asnotedearlier,theremaybeasignificantinformationimbalancebetweenthepartiesand/orthecomplainantsmayfacearangeofdisadvantages(discussedaboveatparagraph10)thatimpactontheirabilitytosubstantiatetheirsubmission.

43. TheAusNCPProcedures,narrowlyconstruedappeartoonlyprovidefora‘one-off’

followupprocess(culminatingina‘Final’followupstatement),anddoesnotappeartoprovideforfurtherinvestigatoryorfollow-upoptions,to:

• verify conflicting reports about the implementation of the AusNCP’s

recommendationsoramediatedagreement;or• continue to comment publicly on an MNE’s failure to implement AusNCP

recommendationsand/oramediatedagreement.

44. Incontrast,theSwissNCPrequestsfurtherreportingifitdoesnotseeprogressinitsfollowup.57TheFrenchNCPalsofollowsuppartiesinappropriatecasesandmaintainscontactforseveralyears,sometimesleadingtosuccessfuloutcomesevenwhereanagreementwasnotreachedintheoriginalprocess.ThiscanbeseenintheexampleofMichelinGroup’soperationsinTamilNaduwhocontinuedtoreportregularlytotheNCPonimplementationoftheNCPrecommendations.58

45. ALHRappreciatesthatinpracticetheAusNCPmayintendtodomorefollowupthanisprovidedforonastrictreadingoftheAusNCPProcedures.However,ALHRsupportsongoingreportingandfollowupofrecommendationsthat,forexample,addresspotentialsystemicorculturalissueswithinMNEs,wherebyeffectivechangemaytakelonger.

46. IftheAusNCPistobeaneffectivenon-judicialgrievancemechanism,theAusNCPProceduresshouldallowAusNCPtogobeyondmerelysummarising,anddrawingconclusionsfromtheparties’responsesregardingtheimplementationoftheNCP’srecommendations.TheAusNCPProceduresshouldallowtheAusNCPtorequestfurtherreporting,conductinvestigationsandmakeadditionalpublicfollowupstatementsonMNEimplementationofAusNCPrecommendations(orlackthereof)

55 Guidelines,CommentaryontheImplementationProceduresoftheOCEDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,ChapterICommentaryontheProceduralGuidanceforNCPs,Paragraph25,82 56ReviewReport,4657‘ImplementingtheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises:TheNationalContactPointsfrom2000to2015’(OECD:2016),5858Ibid

15

oramediatedagreement.Inaddition,ALHRagreeswiththerecommendationsinthe2016publication‘TheAustralianOECDNationalContactPoint:HowItCanBeReformed’that‘(t)heANCPProcessshouldbeamendedtorequiretheANCPtodrawconclusionsontheextenttowhicharemedyhasbeenachieved,whereappropriate.’59

47. ALHRappreciatesthattheAusNCPhaslimitedresourcestofollowuponits

recommendationstoMNEsandtomonitortheimplementationofmediatedagreements,amongstitsotherfunctions.Inlightofthis,andinordertofosterpolicycoherenceacrossgovernmentandincreasethelegitimacyoftheAusNCP,theAusNCPshouldleverageitspositioningovernmenttoincentiviseconstructiveparticipationinthespecificinstanceprocessandfacilitatetheimplementationofitsrecommendations.60

48. AsnotedinALHR’s2017Submission:

‘The 2011 Revision of the Guidelines requires that NCPs make relevant agenciesaware of their reports and statements in order to foster ‘policy coherence.’61 It isuncleartowhatextentthisisoccurring.The2015OECDAnnualReportsuggeststhatAustralia is taking NCP statements into consideration when export financeapplicationsareconsidered.62However,bestpracticeintermsofpolicycoherenceisdemonstratedratherbytheUKandNetherlands’governments’indicationsthattheywilllinkMNEs’refusaltoengageinNCPcomplaintprocessesornegativecompliancedeterminations on human rights, to the withdrawal of export credit finance.63Forexample,theCanadianNCPwithdrewCanadiangovernmentsupport(throughTradeCommissioner services) from a Canadian MNE that failed to engage in the NCPcomplaintprocess.64’65

49. ALHRsubmitsthattheANCPshouldfacilitatecoordinated‘followup’mechanismsbyrelevantgovernmentagencieswhere:

• anMNEfailstoengageinthespecificinstanceprocess;or• isthesubjectofanAusNCPdeterminationthatithasbreachedtheGuidelines

(whereappropriate);or• failstoimplementAusNCPrecommendationsoramediatedagreement.66

59Zornada,TheAustralianOecdNationalContactPoint:HowItCanBeReformed,(2016),1460OECDWatch,Ourcampaigndemandsforpolicymakers,(2018)https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OECD-Watch_-Campaign_demands.pdf,261Guidelines,CommentaryontheImplementationProceduresoftheOCEDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises,ChapterICommentaryontheProceduralGuidanceforNCPs,ConclusionoftheProcedures,Paragraph37,85;BarbaraLinder,KarinLukas,AstridSteinkellner,THERIGHTTOREMEDY:ExtrajudicialComplaintMechanismsforResolvingConflictsofInterestbetweenBusinessActorsandThoseAffectedbytheirOperations(LudwigBoltzmannInstituteofHumanRights:2013),1662OECDAnnualReport,(2015)http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/2015-Annual-Report-MNE-Guidelines-EN.pdf,7563VéroniqueVanDerPlancke,ValérieVanGoethem,GenevièvePaul,ElinWrzoncki,MarionCadier,CorporateAccountabilityforHumanRightsAbuses:AGuideforVictimsandNGOsonRecourseMechanisms(3rdEdition),(FIDH:May2016),408–410;InternationalCorporateAccountabilityRoundtable(ICAR)andEuropeanCoalitionforCorporateJustice(ECCJ)AssessmentsofExistingNationalActionsPlans(NAPs)onBusinessandHumanRights:November2015Update,(ICARandECCJ:2015)64CaitlinDaniel,JosephWilde-Ramsing,KrisGenovese,VirginiaSandjojo,‘RemedyRemainsRare:Ananalysisof15yearsofNCPcasesandtheircontributiontoimproveaccesstoremedyforvictimsofcorporatemisconduct’(OECDWatch:June2015),4665ALHR’s2017Submission,1466SeealsoALHR’s2017Submission,14

16

50. AcoordinatedgovernmentresponsetotheabovecouldincludeMNEineligibilityforgovernmentassistanceincludingimportandexportlicenses,subsidies,exportcredit,tradefinancingandadvocacy,diplomaticsupport,andgovernmentprocurement.67Bywayofexample,CanadahasapolicythatcompaniesmustengageingoodfaithwiththeCanadianNCPtoreceiveeconomicsupportandtradeadvocacy.68Supportiswithdrawnwherecompaniesfailtodoso,asoccurredin2015inthecaseofCanadaTibetCommitteevsChinaGoldInt.Resources.69AUKJointParliamentaryCommitteehaspreviouslyalsostateditwouldconsiderreportingUKcompanieswhoreceiveanegativeFinalStatementfromtheUKNCPtotheSanctionsCommittee.70

51. Similarly,theOECDCouncilonCommonApproachesforOfficiallySupportedExportCreditsandEnvironmentalandSocialDueDiligencerecommendsthatnationalexportcreditagenciesshouldconsiderNCPreportsandstatementswhendecidingapplicationsforcredit.71Itisthepracticein25countriesforNCPstatementstobeconsideredwhendecidingexportfinanceapplications.Ofthese,11countrieshaveformalprocedurestodoso.72ForexampleinGermany,exportcreditapplicationsarenotapprovedunlessallagenciesintheInterministerialCommittee,includingthoseresponsibleforinternationalhumanrightsandhousingtheNCP,agreethatnationalandinternationalrequirementshavebeenmet.NCPreports,aswellascomplaintsreceivedbytheNCP,andfailuretoparticipateinthespecificmechanismprocessareallconsidered.73

52. Finally,theAusNCPProceduresshouldberevisedtorequiretheAusNCPtoreport

toParliamentannuallyonitsactivitiesandpublishitsannualreporttotheOECD.

Question6–DostakeholdersseevalueinhavingareviewmechanismaspartofanyfutureAusNCPstructure,andifso,inwhatform?53. Afollow-upmechanismandareviewmechanismaredifferentaspectsofNCPbest

practice,andservedifferentpurposes.ALHRdoesnotendorsetheproposaltoremovetheAusNCP’sOversightCommittee,eventemporarily,infavourofthefollowupmechanismthatexistsintheAusNCPProcedure.Whileonlyone

67See,eg,‘ObstacleCourse:HowtheUK’sNationalContactPointhandleshumanrightscomplaintsundertheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises’(AmnestyInternational:February2016)9;‘UpdateontheroleofOECDNationalContactPointswithregardstotheextractivesectors’(Meetingreport,InstituteforHumanRightsandBusiness,London,22March2013)7;‘ImplementingtheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises:TheNationalContactPointsfrom2000to2015’(OECD:2016)1868‘2016NationalContactPointAnnualReport’(GlobalAffairsCanada,GovernmentofCanada,23June2017)<http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/ncp-pcn/report2016-rapport2016.aspx?lang=eng>69‘ImplementingtheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises:TheNationalContactPointsfrom2000to2015’(OECD:2016)4570‘Anyofourbusiness?HumanrightsandtheUKprivatesector’(GovernmentresponsetotheCommittee'sfirstreportofsession2009-10,eleventhreportofsession2009-10,report).Seehttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-sanctions-consolidated-list-of-targets71‘RecommendationoftheCouncilonCommonApproachesforOfficiallySupportedExportCreditsandEnvironmentalandSocialDueDiligence’(WorkingPartyonExportCreditsandCreditGuarantees,TradeCommittee,OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment,7April2016)TAD/ECG(2016)372The11countriesbeingAustria,Belgium,Canada,France,Germany,Ireland,Italy,Netherlands,Sweden,SwitzerlandandUK.See‘NationalContactPointComparison’(TradeUnionCases,OECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprises)<http://www.tuacoecdmneguidelines.org/ncpcomparisonall.asp>73‘HumanRights’(ExportCreditGuaranteesoftheFederalRepublicofGermany,AGAPortal)<https://www.agaportal.de/en/exporte-exportkreditgarantien/grundlagen-exportkreditgarantien/menschenrechte-exportkreditgarantien>

17

complainthasbeenescalatedtotheAusNCP’sOversightCommittee,thisislikelytochangeastheAusNCPgainsvisibilityandawiderrangeofcomplaintsareaccepted.

54. ALHRagreeswiththecommentsintheDiscussionPaperthatthecurrentstructureoftheAusNCP‘soversightbody(wheretheAusNCPischairoftheoversightbody)isnotstructuredadequatelytoprovideagenuineopportunityforreview.74ALHRrecommendsthattheOversightCommitteeremain,butwithanewChair,untilsuchtimeasanewAusNCPOversightCommitteestructureisimplemented.

55. ALHRreiteratesour2017Submission,whichrecommendedthattheAusNCP

‘shouldhaveanindependentOversightCommittee,alsounderpinnedbyatripartiterepresentation,withanadvisoryfunctionandoversightofappealsonproceduralissues.’75ConsiderationshouldalsobegiventotheOversightCommitteeconsideringrequestsformeritsreviewofspecificinstancerelateddecisions.

56. ALHRalsorecommendedthattheAusNCP‘shouldincreasethetransparencyofits

processesbypublishingitsOversightCommitteeminutes(excludingconfidentialinformation).’76

Question7–Dostakeholdershaveanycommentsontheproposedtimeframes?57. ALHRwelcomestheproposedtimeframes.However,giventheAusNCP’s

examinationfunctionshavenowbeenmovedtolaterstages,itmaybeappropriatetoallocatelesstimetotheinitialassessmentstage(unlesscircumstanceswarrant),especiallyiftimerunsfromreceiptofa‘valid’complaint.Theadditionaltimeshouldbemovedtothegoodofficesstage.

Question8–Havestakeholdersfoundthisspecificinstancetrackingtoolvaluable?58. ALHRhasnotusedthespecificinstancetrackingtool,howeverALHRwelcomesa

movetoincreasethetransparencyofthespecificinstanceprocess.ALHRechoesthesubmissionsbyotherstakeholdersthatthespecificinstancetrackingtoolshouldatleastpublishinitialassessmentdecisions,andFinalStatementsandFollowUpStatements.

Conclusion

59. In2015,G7leaders77committedtostrengtheningmechanismsforprovidingaccesstoremediesthroughNCPs,byencouragingOECDpromotionofpeerreviewsandensuringtheirownNCPs‘areeffectiveandleadbyexample.’78Thissentimentwasechoedinthe8July2017G20Declaration(towhichAustraliawasaparty)which

74DiscussionPaper,975ALHR’s2017Submission,876 ALHR’s2017Submission,15 77Canada,France,Germany,Italy,Japan,theUnitedKingdom,andtheUnitedStates.78G7Germany,‘Leaders’Declaration:G7Summit’G8InformationCentre,(8June2015)http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2015elmau/2015-G7-declaration-en.html

18

emphasisedcommitmenttotheUNGPsandNCPs,andsupportedaccesstonon-judicialremedythroughNCPsinparticular.79

60. ALHRcallsontheGovernmenttofulfillitsobligationsundertheUNGPsbyimplementingthefollowingrecommendationsforreformoftheAusNCPProcedures,alongwithalltherecommendationsintheReviewReport,includingthosegoingtoadequateresourcingandappropriatestructuringoftheAusNCP.

79G20Leaders ́DeclarationShapinganinterconnectedworldHamburg,(7/8July2017),4-5https://www.g20.org/gipfeldokumente/G20-leaders-declaration.pdf

19

Recommendations1. Recommendation1–implementationoftheReviewReport’srecommendations

TheGovernmentshouldimplementtherecommendationsoftheIndependentReviewerinthe2017ReviewReport.

2. Recommendation2–complaintformThe AusNCP should provide reasonable assistance for complainants (especiallyvulnerable complainants) to complete the complaint form where necessary,includingtranslationservices.

3. Recommendation3–AusNCPwebsite

The AusNCP’s website should be updated with more resources for stakeholders,includingaccessibleinformationandincreasedguidanceforpotentialcomplainantsabout how tomake a complaint. TheNorwegianNCP’swebsite is an example ofbestpractice.

4. Recommendation4–initialassessmentcriteria

Theinitialassessmentcriteriaatparagraph20ofthecurrentAusNCPProceduresshouldberevisedtodirectlyreflectparagraphs25(initialassessmentcriteria)and26(parallelproceedings)intheCommentarytotheGuidelines.TheAusNCPProceduresshouldalsobeupdatedwithcommentaryontheinterpretationoftheinitialassessmentcriteria,whichshouldincludethattheacceptanceofthecomplaintshouldturnonwhetherthecomplaintis‘plausible’.TheAusNCPshouldfurtherconsultwithstakeholdersbeforefinalisingthecommentaryontheinterpretationoftheinitialassessmentcriteria.

5. Recommendation5–Confidentiality

TheAusNCPshoulddevelopaTransparencyPolicyorcommentarydealingwithconfidentialityduringthespecificinstanceprocessinconsultationwithstakeholders.

6. Recommendation6–shiftofexaminationresponsibilities

TheAusNCP’sexaminationfunctionsshouldbeshiftedtoaftertheinitialassessmentstage.However,theAusNCPshouldbeabletoundertakeinvestigationofthecomplaintduringthegoodofficesstage,whereappropriate.

20

7. Recommendation7–DeterminationonbreachoftheGuidelines

Paragraphs52and53oftheAusNCPProceduresshouldberevisedtorequirethattheAUSNCP‘will’(not‘may’)issueaFinalStatementwithadeterminationregardingwhethertheGuidelineswerebreached.

8. Recommendation8–Assistanceforcomplainants

TheAusNCPshouldberesourcedtoassistvulnerablecomplainantswithindependentadvisoryassistance,travelandtranslationserviceswhereappropriatetoensureequitableaccesstothecomplaintprocess.ComplainantswithoutrepresentationinAustraliashouldbereferredtocivilsocietyorganisationsortradeunions.

9. Recommendation9–Expertise

AusNCPstaffandmediatorsshouldhavespecificsubjectmatterexpertise,includingexpertiseontheapplicationoftheGuideline’schapteronhumanrights

10. Recommendation10–Followupmechanism

TheAusNCPProceduresshouldberevisedto:

• provide that the AusNCP ‘will’ (not ‘may’) undertake follow up of AusNCPrecommendationstoMNEsandmediatedagreements;and

• allow theAusNCP to request further reporting, conduct investigations andmake additional public follow up statements on MNE progress on theimplementationofAusNCPrecommendationsormediatedagreements.

11. Recommendation13–Policycoherenceinfollowup

TheAusNCPshouldalsofacilitateacoordinatedresponsebyrelevantgovernmentagencieswhere:

• anMNEfailstoengageinthespecificinstanceprocess;or• is the subject of an AusNCP determination that it has breached the

Guidelines(whereappropriate);or• failstoimplementAusNCPrecommendationsoramediatedagreement.

12. Recommendation12–OversightCommittee

TheAusNCP’scurrentOversightCommitteeshouldbemaintained(butwithadifferentChair)untilanimprovedOversightCommitteestructureisimplemented.

13. Recommendation13–Reporting

TheAusNCPProceduresshouldberevisedtorequiretheAusNCPtoreporttoParliamentannuallyonitsactivitiesandpublishitsannualreporttotheOECD.

21

14. Recommendation14–SpecificinstancetrackingtoolAusNCP’s specific instance tracking tool should publish (at minimum) InitialAssessmentdecisions,FinalStatementsandFollowUpStatements.

If youwould like to discuss any aspect of this submission, please do not hesitate to contactKerryWeste,PresidentofALHR,byemailatpresident@alhr.org.au.

Yoursfaithfully,

KerryWestePresident,ALHRContributors:LaurenZanettiCo-ChairALHRBusinessandHumanRightsSubcommitteewithassistancefromShirishaNampalli,DavidHamerandLouiseDargan.ALHR was established in 1993 and is a national association of Australian solicitors, barristers, academics, judicial officers and law students who practise and promote international human rights law in Australia. ALHR has active and engaged National, State and Territory committees and specialist thematic committees. Through advocacy, media engagement, education, networking, research and training, ALHR promotes, practices and protects universally accepted standards of human rights throughout Australia and overseas.