Has Aust Govt reported the Clinton Foundation's illegal activities in PNG to the PNG Police?

Perhaps David Morrison's values for the Australian Army could have included dignity

Thank you to my father and my children on fathers' day

Has Aust Govt reported the Clinton Foundation's illegal activities in PNG to the PNG Police?

Sunday, 04 September 2016

I have today written to Minister Julie Bishop's Department about a range of matters associated with the Clinton Foundation and its partnership agreement with the Australian Government in PNG.

In March I made enquiries about the over MOU and Clinton's fitness to sign it.

On 8 March 2016 a DFAT Media Liaison Officer partially responded to my queries of 1 March 2016:.

Michael, thanks for your query.

The following can be attributed to a spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:

“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. The MOU is a non-binding cooperation agreement with the intent to fight HIV/AIDS in China, Vietnam and Papua New Guinea. 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.”

For your background, the “range of measures concerning transparency and accountability” of the Foundation mentioned in DFAT’s briefing document refers to an agreement between the Clinton Foundation and the US Government concerning Hillary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State. It bears no relation to the Australian Government’s funding agreements with Clinton Health Access Initiative.

Regards

_______________________________
Media Liaison Officer | Media Liaison Section

1. In relation to DFAT's statement that Clinton was the Clinton Foundation's founder - the Clinton Foundation is a prescribed US non-profit corporation established under the auspices of the Presidential Libraries Act and other US legislation.

The Foundation was founded in 1997 by 3 Arkansas citizens to provide funding for the Clinton Presidential Library.

Is DFAT aware that Clinton's claim to be the founder is false? Does DFAT have any comment on its repetition of Clinton's false claim?

2. I refer DFAT's 8 March statement

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

I refer to the Independent Completion Report for the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative in PNG

Aid Activity Name 06B191

AidWorks Initiative Number ING918

EVALUATION REPORT

Alison Heywood

Health Systems Strengthening Specialist

UniQuest Pty Limited July 2009

http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/hiv-chai-evaluation-report.pdf

The report includes these findings.

Clarity of objectives, indicators and targets

The project is briefly outlined in Section 2 above. The only defining project document is the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Workplan for 2006-2009. In this document 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.

Appropriateness of management and institutional arrangements

A Funding Agreement was signed in July 2006 between the government of Australia and CHAI. This outlined the terms and conditions of the arrangement between AusAID and CHAI for the implementation of CHAI in PNG. This agreement states that “the parties agree to monitor the Program against the Program Milestones and evaluate it against the Program Outcomes.” The defining document against which this occurs is the Program Workplan 2006- 2009. 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).

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

This section of the report assesses whether the M&E framework effectively measures progress towards meeting project objectives. It therefore 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.

CHAI Human Resources

Human resource issues have challenged the project from the start. There was unusually high staff turnover in the program during the initial two years 2006-2008, including some key positions. Between 2006 and the end of 2007, five of seven original staff transitioned out of the program (see Annex 9). Since the beginning of 2008, there has been program stability though a recent departure of the second Clinical Director has prompted CHAI (at the direction of Principal Technical Adviser, HIV/AIDS/STI, Communicable Diseases Branch and the Health Secretary) to recruit for this position from within PNG going forward. Recruitment of some members of the in-county team appears to have not been thoroughly explored, resulting in appointment of people not suited to the PNG environment, project management roles, and not acceptable to the GoPNG.

EXTRACTS END

Given that the report finds

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?

If not, why not?

Why did we pay when the deficiencies are so obvious?

In June 2006 the Clinton Foundation assigned a recent graduate Zachary Katz to become the head of its Australian funded operations in PNG. The Independent Completion Review above notes that human resources issues have challenged the project from the start. My analysis of Mr Katz and his background is here

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/08/warning-signs-for-australia-that-bill-clinton-was-way-off-the-straight-and-narrow-in-png.html

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?

3. The illegal incorporation of the Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative in Papua New Guinea

I refer to the unlawful incorporation in PNG of The Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc.

I have published the results of my research into the corporate entity the Clinton Foundation abused in PNG here.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/08/the-illegal-incorporation-of-the-clinton-hivaids-initiative-in-papua-new-guinea.html

In PNG/Australia the lowest level scrutiny in the creation of a corporate personality is afforded to Incorporated Associations.

PNG's Incorporated Associations Act 1966 sets out the requirements applying to PNG in 2006.

The act typically provides for the incorporation of local sporting clubs, children's football associations and similar organisations.

One of the attractions to fraudsters is that incorporated associations are not obliged to file financial returns. Rather they are required to keep books which may be inspected but seldom are.

In PNG the Regulator (defined in the Act) may incorporate an association if satisfied that the person seeking incorporation is authorised by resolution of the committee of the unincorporated association to make application.

Secondly one month must elapse from advertisement of intention to apply for incorporation.

Thirdly the association's proposed rules/objects must be submitted and publicly displayed.

The Clinton CHAI met none of these requirements.

It was incorporated within days of application.

The incorporation was ultra vires from the Regulator - but I sense some coercion or fraudulent representations leading to that unlawful exercise of power.

On 21 August 2006 a Ms Ruby Shang, the President of the Caterpillar Earthmoving Dealership in Vietnam and notionally the Asia Pacific representative of The Clinton Foundation presented a Notice of Intention to Incorporate an Association to the Registrar of Companies, PNG.

Ms Shang committed a fraud on the Registrar by stating, "I, Ruby Shang, a person authorised for the purpose by the committee of the association known as "William J. Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative - PNG'".

That claim is false. There is no evidence of a group of persons let alone a committee of the group existing at all to authorise Ms Shang to apply for its incorporation.

On 23 August 2006 this advertisement appeared in the PNG newspaper.

On 23 August 2006 Ms Shang again attended at the office of the Registrar of Companies PNG with this false Statutory Declaration.

Ms Shang declares that she is authorised to make the application on behalf of the association. She cannot have been. There was no association.

From the date of the advertisement, one month must elapse before the Regulator is empowered to incorporate the Association.

One of the matters the Regulator must consider is whether or not the Association's rules/objects meet the requirements of the Act.

SCHEDULE 1 – Matters to be Provided for in the Rules of an Association.

Sec. 16.

1. The name of the association.

2. The objects and purposes of the association.

3. The qualifications (if any) for membership of the association.

4. The donations or subscriptions (if any) to be made or paid by members of the association.

5. The names, constitution, membership and powers of the general committee, board of management or other governing authority of the association (in this item referred to as “the committee”) and–

(a) the election or appointment of members of the committee; and

(b) the terms of office of members of the committee; and

(d) the filling of casual vacancies occurring on the committee; and

(e) the quorum and procedure at meetings of the committee; and

(f) the quorum and procedure at meetings of sub-committees appointed by the committee.

6. The quorum and procedure at general meetings of members of the association and of sub-committees appointed by any such meeting or constituted or established under the rules of the association.

7. The time within which, and the manner in which, notices of meetings and notices of motion are to be given, published or circulated.

8. The sources from which the funds of the association are to be or may be derived.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. The manner of altering and rescinding the rules and of making additional rules.

13. Provision for the custody and use of the seal of the association.

14. The manner in which the objects or purposes of the association may be altered.

15. The form, custody and use of the common seal of the association.

16. The custody of books, documents and securities of the association.

At 8.38AM on 24 August 2006 Ruby Shang delivered to the Regulator a copy of the Clinton Foundation's articles of association from Arkansas in 1997. They bear no relationship to the requirements of the PNG Incorporated Associations Act.

Download 0100008137658 (2)

There was no attempt at producing anything like a set of rules and objects that come close to meeting the PNG regulator's requirements.

About two hours later on 24 August 2006 and in spite of the unmistakable illegality, the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative - PNG Inc was incorporated.

Apparent double-funding for similar work

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/08/warning-signs-for-australia-that-bill-clinton-was-way-off-the-straight-and-narrow-in-png.html

This extract is from my website in the link above. It refers to what is apparently similar work done by the Clinton Foundation for payment by each of Unitaid and the Australian Government.

CHAI was established in 2002 by President Bill Clinton. Shortly after UNITAID’s creation in 2006, the two organizations set out to reach groups in developing countries that were neglected by HIV drug markets: adults living with HIV that needed “second-line” antiretroviral treatment and children living with HIV.
CHAI’s entrepreneurial approach to providing access to health care combined with UNITAID’s innovative financing and funding model was a potent mix in influencing market dynamics for HIV treatments.

Papua New Guinea: Papua New Guinea is one of the only countries in the UNITAID-CHAI Project to domestically fund its transition from CHAI/UNITAID projects. Starting in 2006, CHAI and the Department of Health worked to build clinical capacity for paediatric HIV treatment. As the UNITAID paediatric project approached its end date, CHAI and Papua New Guinea’s National Department of Health, National AIDS Council Secretariat and parliamentary representatives implemented a successful transition. While the existence of available resources made the transition possible, early planning, collaborative discussions and the work of key domestic advocates created consensus and national ownership. Read the full UNITAID/CHAI Papua New Guinea story [PDF, 270 KB].

This analysis describes the Unitaid funding to CHAI for PNG paediatrics HIV program.

And this extract is from the Australian Government funding review of the CHAI in PNG - looks like much the same work was submitted for assessment to each of Unitaid and the Australian Government.

REQUEST FOR ANSWERS PLEASE

Why was similar work paid for by Unitaid also paid for by the Australian Government?

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?

8.The sources from which the funds of the association are to be or may be derived.

10. 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.

11. 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?