The 21 pages deleted from The Clinton Foundation's 2005 IRS tax-exempt annual return
Part Two of my response to your feedback about the Clinton Foundation

DFAT seeks extension of time on advice to PNG Police about Clinton's sham incorporated association fraud


There are only two roles DFAT can play now that we've reported the Gillardesque "Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative -PNG Inc" incorporated association scandal.

Deceived victim of fraud.

Complicit accessory helping to keep it concealed.

There's no middle ground now.  DFAT is on notice, it cannot play at naivety.

If DFAT hasn't reported the matter to PNG police we will.

Yesterday was our deadline for answers to our questions about Clinton and PNG.

Last night I received this note


Hi Michael,

We are working on a response for you but won’t be able to respond by your suggested deadline. We will endeavour to have something for you by Friday.

Kind regards


Media Liaison Section 
Parliamentary and Media Branch | Public Diplomacy & Communications Division

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

On Sunday I wrote to DFAT over their silly statement about our donations to the Clinton Foundation of Slush Funds to the Quality.  

DFAT claimed:

"All funding arrangements are accompanied by specific legal funding agreements with specified outcomes, deliverables, budgets and conditions."

The independent audit reports on Clintons dodgy deals in PNG, Indonesia and elsewhere:

 there is no statement of project goal or purpose, thus no indicators at that level, no clear Program Area objectives (with indicators) and no targets.

It is therefore impossible for this part of the agreement to be adhered to.

Does DFAT wish to withdraw its statement of 8 March 2016?

Why did we pay Clinton for stuff that Unitaid it was paying him for at the same time?

Does the Australian Government consider that an incorporated association is an appropriate structure to operate under an Australian taxpayer funded agreement in one of the most corrupt nations on earth, PNG?

Was the Australian Government aware of the advertisement of the Clinton Foundation's intention to incorporate?  if not, why not?

Did we object within the 30 day period?   Did we object to the incorporation being made on the same day as the application?

Given that Australia was funding the operations of the Clinton Foundation, why did the government pay on its contracts when the Clinton Foundation's incorporated association did not have rules that addressed these points in particular?

  • The sources from which the funds of the association are to be or may be derived.
  • The manner in which the funds of the association are to be managed and, in particular, the mode of drawing and signing cheques, drafts, bills of exchange, promissory notes and other documents for and on behalf of the association
  • The intervals between general meetings of members of the association, the manner of calling general and special meetings and the requisite notices of meetings of the association
  • Whether the accounts of the association are to be audited annually or more frequently, the manner of appointing and removing auditors and the powers and duties of auditors.

Since 24 August 2006 all of the documents I've referred to here have been filed on line and publicly accessible at the PNG website of the Investment Promotion Authority.

Has the Australian Government conducted any searches of the entity it was funding in PNG?

Did we audit its books?  

If not why not, but if so - how did its manifest illegality escape our attention?

Has the Australian Government reported the Clinton Foundation's illegal activities in PNG to the PNG Police?

If not, will the Australian Government report the matter to PNG Police now?

Why did DFAT pay a fee for the services of a young man with no experience in PNG, medicine, start up operations or management?

Does DFAT consider Mr Katz to have been an appropriate person to conduct business paid for by Australia in PNG?   

Why did DFAT pay the Clinton Foundation more than the agreed contract amount for PNG when the Independent Completion Report is so damning of its performance?