Psychiatrist Peter Doherty Reviews

In general this person has no people skills - he is very abrupt and rude. From a professional point of view I found him to be a waste of time and for a person with depression I felt 10 times as bad when I left his office. During the consultation Peter Doherty did not listen to anything I had to say it was all about him and the pre meditated result in his thoughts. Very bad experience. - Never again. Do not go there.

This psychiatrist was hand picked by Woolworths lawyers to minimise my work place injury but the lies in his report about me left me with no choice but to report him to AHPRA He stated that I drank three bottles of red wine per day while on 200mg of Zoloft .. why didnt he contact my gp if this was truly the case .. medical negligent on his part already Here I had Woolworths apologising for my psychological injury while this useless person was trying to say I was not being honest about my condition Just a complete waste of time for the Woolworths lawyers and my lawyers .. medical panel is the next step

User's recommendation: Just read the report about you and make sure it’s true and correct .. we are fighting for justice .. the truth is everything to us.

Dr Peter Doherty who practises in Church st Richmond Melbourne. I saw this corrupt quack late last year as an IME and he diagnosed me with major depressive disorder and then wrote a second report totally contradicting his first report and making personal insults against me without even seeing me a second time. I’m sure he did this to try and destroy my work cover claim.He is a hired gun for insurance companies

Dont see this fraud for an IME. He is another of Gallaghar Bassett Hired guns. He is only in it for the money that he gets paid to write utter crap. Absolute disgrace. And they wonder why people have mental issues. STAY AWAY from this low life. There needs to be a royal commission into this sort of behaviour. URGENTLY. Mental health issues shouldnt be treated the way these hired guns go about things!!!

Howard Bowles' customers included family of the best friends of the Bushes in Texas. Dr Doherty's report for Howard Bowles was assessed by the IRS Office of the Whistleblower in Ogden UT and Dr Doherty knows diddly about PACs' tax status. His tax knowledge is so poor perhaps his tax affairs should be examined for a second opinion. If the Minister arranged for his brother to be handed a $15M contract then pretended to advertise for tenders and was sprung after an evaluation report so damning as to be laughable he would have been charged with fraud. How does doing the same thing for Bill Clinton change things? CALL FOR ENQUIRY INTO The AusAID and Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative: Papua New Guinea including a referral to Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary of a serious offence involving a public official Australia's current Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop, pictured here in New York with Bill Clinton. 6a0177444b0c2e970d01bb0929f37c970d Summary In February 2006 Foreign Minister Alexander Downer signed an MOU with Clinton that if read up shows an Australian Government preparedness to spend up to $25M in matched spending with the Clinton Foundation in HIV/Aids aid work in China, Vietnam and Papua New Guinea over 4 years. The Papua New Guinea funding agreement was signed in July with the Clinton Foundation. In August the Australian Government made a call for tenders or expressions of interest in the work already contracted to the Clinton Foundation. The due date for tenders was 3 October 2006. By then the Clinton Foundation's sham incorporated entity in PNG was already 3 months old. The post contract evaluation report, commissioned at a cost of $100,000 is damning of the contract and performance. 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. 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- ****. 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. Now compare the $100K audit with the PR spin from Julie Bishop's Department to me yesterday. The funding agreement for the PNG Clinton Foundation agreement 2006-**** had specified outcomes, deliverables, budgets and conditions including the supply of audited Financial Statements. Australian Government funding was delivered as per the agreed schedule and milestones met under the terms of the agreement. Who's responsible now? On 30 September 2015 General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC, Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia made an Administrative Arrangements Order pursuant to Section II of the Constitution. Part 9 of the order sets out the matters dealt with by The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including relations and communications with overseas governments; and, international development co-operation; and, international development and aid On 19 July 2016 Julie Bishop took the prescribed oath and was commissioned to be the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Circumstances On 22 August 2016 I became aware of a sham financial arrangement involving the unlawful incorporation of a fictional association called "Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc" by authority of the Regulator of Companies in PNG. The sham was incorporated on false information supplied by Ms Ruby SHANG. The Australian Government appears to have paid $15M to the benefit of the fraudulent sham entity. I had for some time been concerned with the statement DFAT gave me in March stating DFAT considered the project unexceptional, when the Evaluation Report DFAT commissioned at a cost of almost $100K was the polar opposite of DFAT's advice. On Sunday 4 September I wrote to officers of Minister Bishop's department to ask, among other things if it had lodged a report with the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary regarding the offences disclosed in my correspondence. I sought an answer by 7 September 2016. On 7 September 2016 DFAT acknowledged my letter. UNCLASSIFIED 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 Yesterday I received this reply. UNCLASSIFIED Dear Michael, Thanks for your enquiry. The following information is for your background. The funding agreement for the PNG Clinton Foundation agreement 2006-**** had specified outcomes, deliverables, budgets and conditions including the supply of audited Financial Statements. Australian Government funding was delivered as per the agreed schedule and milestones met under the terms of the agreement. The Clinton Foundation worked in partnership with both the Australian Government and UNITAID on paediatric HIV. UNITAID assisted in the procurement of affordable paediatric medications and this program supported the services to provide these medications to children. The Australian Government regularly reviews and evaluates the performance of aid program projects, including ongoing monitoring of programs to identify both progress against outcomes and possible areas for improvement. More information on how we manage performance is on the DFAT website. Regards _______________________________ Media Liaison Section Parliamentary and Media Branch | Public Diplomacy & Communications Division Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Phone +61 2 **** **** http://dfat.gov.au Web | Twitter | YouTube | Flickr | Facebook History with the Clinton Foundation On 22 February 2006 - Sydney, Australia $25M MOU signed Alexander Downer for the Australian Government and William Jefferson CLINTON signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the William J. Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative or the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc and the Government of Australia. The MOU provides for the Australian Government to contribute up to $25M to a partnership with the Clinton Foundation with our funding to be matched, or supplemented by a contribution, or funding, or nothing from the Clinton agencies that may have been party to the agreement. Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 5.17.21 pm Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 5.08.02 pm Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 5.08.15 pm Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 5.13.18 pm Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 5.14.26 pm There is considerable doubt about just when the contract period in PNG began. In July 2006 a Funding Agreement was signed between the government of Australia and CHAI 1 August 2006 - purported start date of the PNG Contract as per the Evaluation Report Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 5.25.11 pm Extract from Heywood Evaluation Report In 2006 Australia, through AusAID, agreed to fund the Clinton Foundation (CF) to scale up treatment and care for people living with HIV in PNG. A Funding Agreement was signed in August 2006 whereby AusAID agreed to contribute $10,202,351 to the end of 2009 to support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI). A workplan for the period 1 October 2006 to 31 December 2009 describes nine Areas of Collaboration - later reduced to six technical Program Areas, plus Management. 14 August 2006 - purported start date of the contract according to Austender. However the AUSTENDER website is responsible for publishing contractual events as soon as practical after each occurrence. While the website records the contract as starting on 14 August 2006, Austender apparently did not have any advice from the contracting agency, DFAT to publish the contractual details until 3 years later. On 15 July 2010 the contract details in what purports to have been an open competitive tender in 2007 were published. Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 5.29.14 pm On or about 20 August 2006 a notice, purporting to be a bona fide invitation to tender for the contract already awarded to the Clinton Foundation was published to the DFAT website. It costs private companies thousands of dollars to submit the detailed proposals necessary to secure multimillion dollar contracts like those gifted to the Clintons. If it was in the bag for the Clinton Foundation, why go through the fraudulent process to create the appearance of adhering to regulations that require a competitive process before public money is spent. Those competitive guidelines are in place to defeat debacles like this one before they happen. Losing tenderers are often upset if they feel unfairly treated in a well managed competitive process, but at least one of the cohort generally has something to celebrate. To be used as cannon fodder by bureaucrats at war with proper processes is just infuriating. And costly. And fraudulent. Inviting tenders for a contract that has already been given meets the criminal points of proof for Obtaining a Financial Advantage (for self or another) by Deception. It's a cover up, something that is not what it purports to be. On the papers it appears a pretence was made at advertising a call for tenders after the contract, in whatever form it originally took had been awarded. If this was a construction company run by a mate of the Minister it would be investigated on the spot. It's clearly deceptive conduct. If the Clinton Foundation received a financial advantage (clearly it did in a $15M uncontested contract) the people who did the deceiving will be in the frame for fraud charges, ie those responsible for the overall decision to defy the process by improperly awarding the Clintons work they weren't entitled to. ON 20 August 2006 the US web.archive.org organisation visited the DFAT website and archived a precise and perfect duplicate of what it displayed on that day. http://web.archive.org/web/200608****4845/http://www1.ausaid.gov.au/Tenders/displayetender.aspx?TID=028/06 The links still operate Current Tenders Tender documentation can be obtained by clicking on the tender title, or by contacting the officer nominated in the tender summary. TitleClosing Date CANBERRA IMPLEMENTATION OFFICE - PROJECT MANAGEMENT, FITOUT DESIGN ARCHITECT & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES25 August 2006 ACEH REHABILITATION PROGRAM - INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT - INFRASTRUCTURE MONITORING TEAM30 August 2006 REVIEW OF INFORMATION SERVICES05 September 2006 AUSAID INDONESIA PROGRAM - HEALTH ADVISER (JAKARTA)21 September 2006 PNG–AUSTRALIA HIV AND AIDS PROGRAM03 October 2006 This is the page that follows from the link above. Screen Shot 2016-09-10 at 1.29.15 am In September and March Australian Government departments must publish to their websites details of all contracts entered into or extant during the preceding 6 month period. Here is the AUSAID contracts list published around April 2007 covering the entire 2006 calendar year - the Clinton Foundation PNG contract was not published. Here's the 2007 list, the project was published there with an end date of 2009 and a valued of $10.2M Screen Shot 2016-09-10 at 2.10.35 am On 11 October 2007 a genuine tender for the final Evaluation Report on the Clinton Foundation work was published to the Austender website. Note the 4 extensions to the end date for the Clinton HIV/Aids project. Screen Shot 2016-09-10 at 1.24.09 am These are the 14 tenderers: Screen Shot 2016-09-10 at 1.25.49 am On 8 May 2009 the details of the contract awarded to the successful tenderer were published. Screen Shot 2016-09-10 at 2.17.30 am Alison Heywood is a formidable authority on the subjects DFAT wanted examined in the Evaluation process. Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 4.24.28 pm Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 4.24.47 pmScreen Shot 2016-09-09 at 4.24.57 pm Ms Heywood has delivered a fair, comprehensive and balanced report in return for her almost $100K contract. It's a lot of money but it's worth it for the crystal clear record of what appointing the Clinton Foundation really means. http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/hiv-chai-evaluation-report.pdf Where there are positives, for example the presence of additional staff (professionals like doctors in particular) who've made a difference, Ms Heywood has noted it. In relation to the contract itself and the way it was managed Ms Heywood is similarly fair, comprehensive and balanced in my view. And damning. Ms Heywood's report is frank about the way the contract was awarded and not managed at all. Her evaluation report notes: ......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. (She notes the) absence of a logical framework (or equivalent), particularly with respect to the distinction between outputs and outcomes, and articulation of indicators and means of verification 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- ****. 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. 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 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. For CHAI an M&E framework has never been developed, despite frequent requests by AusAID for one. Now compare and contrast the $100K expert's report after visiting the project with the statement from DFAT to me yesterday. UNCLASSIFIED Dear Michael, Thanks for your enquiry. The following information is for your background. The funding agreement for the PNG Clinton Foundation agreement 2006-**** had specified outcomes, deliverables, budgets and conditions including the supply of audited Financial Statements. Australian Government funding was delivered as per the agreed schedule and milestones met under the terms of the agreement. The Clinton Foundation worked in partnership with both the Australian Government and UNITAID on paediatric HIV. UNITAID assisted in the procurement of affordable paediatric medications and this program supported the services to provide these medications to children. The Australian Government regularly reviews and evaluates the performance of aid program projects, including ongoing monitoring of programs to identify both progress against outcomes and possible areas for improvement. More information on how we manage performance is on the DFAT website. Regards _______________________________ Media Liaison Section Parliamentary and Media Branch | Public Diplomacy & Communications Division Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Phone +61 2 **** **** http://dfat.gov.au Web | Twitter | YouTube | Flickr | Facebook If Alexander Downer arranged for his brother to be handed a $15M contract then pretended to advertise for tenders and was sprung after an evaluation report so damning as to be laughable he would have been charged with fraud. How does doing the same thing for Bill Clinton change things? PART TWO, The criminal matters shortly.