Julia Gillard says Hillary Clinton is history or something.
Clinton Foundation in Australia - corporate details

We gave Clinton Foundation $25M for a "significant contribution" the CF had "already made"

Bill-and-hillary-clinton-2There's something screwy about the money Australia paid the Clinton Foundation.

On 22 February 2006 Minister Downer signed an MOU with Bill Clinton.  

The agreement recorded that Australia intended to fund AIDS programs in China, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea and "elsewhere".

The word "contribution" to the partnership established by the Agreement appears 3 times in the document.  

While Australia's contribution was set as a target of $25M to be transferred over 4 years, the Clinton Foundation contribution was recognised in the recitals as significant and already delivered prior to the signing of the MOU.


Australia's contribution

"The Australian contribution......  a target of $25M over 4 years".   The words "could reach" and "provided the cooperation evolves successfully" are included.

"The Australian contribution will be transferred in accordance with a mutually agreed mechanism.....

The Clinton Foundation's contribution

..the significant contribution that The Clinton Foundation has already brought down the price of anti-retroviral .....medicines"


When were the $25M programs established 

Australian Government agencies are required to publish a list of each contract entered into or not fully performed/completed during each calendar and financial year.  None of the Clinton contracts later purported to have been entered into under the MOU was published by DFAT to its website in accordance with that order.

The Austender.gov.au website has published 4 Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative contracts which add up to about $25M.  Three were said to have commenced in July 2006, of those 2 were published on 13 Feb 2008 and the other in July 2010.  The 4th contract was published in September 2008 for work said to have commenced in October 2007.

Each of those 4 contracts was posted as having been awarded after an open tender.  The Austender.gov.au website routinely publishes the details of winning tenderers as soon as all parties have been notified and as soon as possible in any event.  The most significant of the 4 Clinton contracts $15M for Papua New Guinea was published to the Austender website 4 years after it was purported to have been awarded.


Post Implementation Reviews

The review of the $15M Papua New Guinea work is scathing of the Clinton Foundation and the AusAid staff who gave the Foundation that money.

The only contract it refers to is the $25M MoU.  The review says $11M was "allocated" to PNG for a contract said to have commenced in August 2006 for completion in December 2009.

1.1.2 Process for CHAI commencing in PNG

In the course of discussions with the Australian Foreign Minister in 2006 Australia, through AusAID, agreed to support funding to the Clinton Foundation (CF) to scale up treatment and care for people living with HIV in China, Vietnam and PNG. Indonesia was included later.

The Clinton Foundation agreed with PNG Government to complement AUSAid funding.   We put in $15M, they put in $400K.

A Funding Agreement between CF and the PNG Government states CF will complement AusAID funding. CF has contributed paediatric ARVs, paediatric OI drugs, commodities for the Early Infant Diagnosis Program (e.g. reagents, equipment including PCR machine) totalling US$417,622 USD as of June 2009.  (Australia put in a total of $15M cash).

The review found that there was no initial design document for the program.

There was no project design at the commencement of the project. The usual steps that lead to the development of a project design were not undertaken, largely as a result of the way in which the decision to fund CHAI was made (see Section 1.1.2 above).............it is difficult to say that an appropriate response was evident in a proposed project design, as the evidence for it is missing. In addition, the elements of the project have changed over time and while there is no documentation to explain the changes.....

The consequences of this have been the absence of a justified logical project, presentation of indicators to measure effectiveness, and the development of an M&E framework to assist both implementer and donor to monitor achievements.

The funding agreement was unenforcable

As noted above there is no stated objective/outcome in this document (or any documents subsequent to this) for the whole project (and associated indicators). Outcomes or objectives for each of the AoC are not articulated (thus no indicators provided). It is therefore impossible for this part of the agreement to be adhered to.

The Funding Agreement is further compromised by the description of the reporting requirements (Attachment B) which at no time specifies that the project must report systematically against all activities that are part of each of the AoC (or subsequent Program Areas), or on any indicators of outcomes (even though it states it must report on progress of the Program against the Annual Plan).

Under the heading Effectiveness

As already stated the overarching goal/purpose/objective of the CHAI was never clearly articulated, and thus no indicators to measure its achievement have been presented in any project documentation. 

In the absence of a clear statement of objectives at the overall project level, and objective statements without indicators at the Program Area level it is not possible to say with any degree of confidence whether CHAI has been effective.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

This section of the report .....assumes that there is an M&E framework for the project with clearly stated objectives and indicators to use for measuring their achievement. This was not the case with CHAI.

Evaluation requires that objectives and outcomes are clearly stated at the overall project (goal) and component (Program Area) level, and indicators for measuring achievement of those goals and objectives are stated. There is no overarching project goal statement. In the 2006 workplan (the first definitive description of the project) no objectives were stated for each of the AoCs (later Program Areas). Only in the 2008 AAP do Program Area objectives become evident for some Program Areas, but these are interchangeably objectives for the duration of the project or for the year of that AAP. At this point in time no indicators are provided to measure their achievement.

Systematic M&E is integral to effective project management. For CHAI an M&E framework has never been developed, despite frequent requests by AusAID for one. 

The ultimate beneficiaries of this project are people living with HIV. There is no indication CHAI will measure the outcome of the project on them. There is a significant body of published literature on measuring the outcome of treatment and care programs for PLHIV using Quality of Life indicators. There are opportunities to collect “significant stories” (as distinct form using the “Significant Change” methodology) as evidence of the effect of this project on PLHIV, particularly to do with the Micro Credit Livelihood Enhancement and participation in activities such as those available through the Well Baby Centre. Literature is available on the measurement of stigma. To date CHAI does not appear to have considered any of these.

Around the same time as the PNG independent review, another Evaluation Team produced this report which contains almost identical findings to those made in PNG.

there is considerable room for improvement in key areas. The assessment of progress against objectives has been constrained due to the lack of a comprehensive design document. Lack of a comprehensive design document with clear objectives is a substantial risk.

The report found that as well as AUSAid funding, the Clinton Foundation also received funding from another donor for much the same work.

CHAI is funded as the Global Fund sub-recipient for HIV supply chain management (July 2009 - June 2014).

Design issues

The IPR was required to assess CHAI’s performance against the project’s objectives and outputs. CHAI’s objectives, intended outputs and outcomes, and implementation strategy are not clearly documented. There is no comprehensive design document.

There is no statement of program goal. The presentation by CHAI to the Independent Project Review Team referred to CHAI’s global mission.1

Lack of a documented assessment of other HIV activities means that there may be a risk of duplication and poor coordination with other projects. With the commencement of CHAI activities funded by the Global Fund, there is a need for coordination of the planning and reporting of CHAI’s Global Fund work with CHAI’s AusAID-funded work.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

The M&E Plan is in the form of a matrix and is not contextualized. There is little connection between the data in the M&E matrix and the discussion and analysis in the narrative of progress reports provided to AusAID. It is unclear whether the existing M&E matrix of indicators is proving useful for management purposes to CHAI or AusAID. The M&E Plan has been in place for less than a year. It seems that little useful information has been generated against the M&E matrix to inform assessment of effectiveness

Financial management

More information is required in financial reporting to aid in understanding of the rationale for expenses and the categorization of expenses e.g. by explaining what comes within expenses reported as ‘TA and related costs’, ‘program management’ and ‘indirect costs’. It is not helpful for analysis that most expenses under each component are classified as ‘indirect costs’.  There is a 12% on-cost for global support services.  A justification for the 12% on-cost could be provided by detailing the extent of support from the global and regional teams.

Other reporting

CHAI progress reports to AusAID could be more candid .......... The M&E Plan has been in place for less than a year and although some data has been generated, there is little evidence of analysis of data being conducted to inform reports and aid the assessment of effectiveness. It was not clear that the M&E Plan’s many indicators have yet been useful for management purposes. As CHAI is now receiving funds from both Global Fund and AusAID, a coherent approach to managing, planning and reporting of co-funded activity is required.


Which entities were The Parties in our Clinton Foundation MOU

The MOU document was headed "Memorandum of Understanding between the Australian Government and the William J. Clinton Foundation".

The MOU recorded it was "made" and "entered into" "by" and "between" "The Australian Government" and "The William J. Clinton Foundation", "hereinafter called The Parties".

An explanatory note describing the contract was published to the DFAT website - here is a 2007 screen grab:

Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 8.59.40 pm

At the time of signing, Clinton was not an officer of the Clinton Foundation.  The Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc was still operating (it was dissolved by securities authorities in late 2007).  

Earlier this year a DFAT officer wrote in answer to my queries,

"Former US President Bill Clinton signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Australian Government in 2006 in his capacity as the Founder and Representative of the William J Clinton Foundation.  All funding arrangements are accompanied by specific legal funding agreements with specified outcomes, deliverables, budgets and conditions. No donations were provided to the Clinton Foundation.

“All DFAT funding agreements are with Clinton Health Access Initiative - a separate legal entity from Clinton Foundation since 2010 – to deliver HIV/AIDS treatment to a range of Asia-Pacific countries.” 

It's a revision of history to say the agreement was with the Clinton Health Access Initiative.  In 2010 during Julia Gillard's prime ministership the DFAT explanatory note published to the website was altered to state the agreement was between the Australian Government and the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 9.12.30 pm

Senate order on government agency contracts

On 20 June 2001, the Senate agreed to an order requiring each Minister to table a letter of advice that a list of contracts, in respect of each agency administered by that Minister, has been placed on the Internet, with access to the list through the department's website. The letter must be tabled no later than 2 calendar months after the last day of the financial and calendar year.

The order and subsequent amendments require that the list of contracts include details of:

  • each contract entered into by the department which has not been fully performed or which has been entered into in the previous 12 months, and which provides for a consideration to the value of $100,000 or more;
  • the contractor, the amount of the consideration and the subject matter of each contract;
  • whether each such contract contains provisions requiring the parties to maintain confidentiality of any of its provisions, or whether there are any other requirements of confidentiality, and a statement of the reasons for confidentiality
  • an estimate of the cost of complying with this order and a statement of the method used to make the estimate.

Agency contracts for DFAT 2005 to 2013 - zero Clinton contracts disclosed by DFAT

The information for 2012 -2013 is here


Not one contract with the Clinton Foundation was disclosed during the period.  

Austender documents create more concern

These "contracts" with the Clinton Foundation are said to have arisen from the 22 February 2006 MOU.  Each purports to have been awarded after an open tender.  In every case, the publication of the so-called tender result is some years after the purported contract award.

Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 9.23.16 pm Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 9.23.32 pm Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 9.24.28 pm Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 9.25.26 pm

Mysteriously, the contracts sum to just over $25M, the amount in the MOU that we signalled we might spend in the 5 years from start 06 to end 10.

Dutifully, the Gillard Government reported the success of the program to the DFAT website in December 2010.

Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 5.15.34 am

And since 2013, the Julie Bishop led DFAT has embraced the Clintons with open arms.  These projects are recorded as having commenced in July 2012, during the Gillard prime ministership and after the damning reviews referred to above.



Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 5.21.55 am



Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 5.23.59 am

And note the $25M for Indonesia said to have commenced in July 2012 doesn't show up in any report until after December 2015.


Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 5.25.05 am

Here's that MOU.

Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 2.12.39 pm Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 5.51.44 am

And this, my friends, is just for HIV/Aids.

Climate Change is worse.  For us that is.  The Clintons are laughing.

More soon.