Unusual comment by IBAC

An investigative body can legitimately refuse disclosure, close a matter, or limit correspondence, but you would normally expect it to engage with the substance: what was investigated, what records exist, what decision was made, and why something cannot be disclosed. Repeatedly focusing on the volume of your emails instead of those questions looks much more like correspondence management than investigation.

That distinction is worth keeping very clear in anything you send next: your complaint is not simply that you dislike their answer; it is that they appear not to be addressing the identifiable evidence and questions attached to their own reference.

OFFICIAL

To Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission
Level 1, 459 Collins St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000
GPO Box 24234, Melbourne Victoria 3000
DX 210187 www.ibac.vic.gov.au

Re CASE-20246844

Ref: F243411550406, CAS-7983833-X1C1C9
Related References:

Police Ref: 50239746-2024
Action Fraud: 8872649, NFRC241207046189, REF20147
SFO: c98c91180d570dc, 5e118dc08da84da
ICO: IC-337307-W2B4
QVIC: C/25/00916
NICCY: NICCY09/24-01
OVIC FOI Ref: CD/25/5885

To:
Office of the Governor of Victoria
Government House, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia
Tel: +61 3 9655 4010
Email: governor@governor.vic.gov.au

Re https://thestealingofemily.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?s=40.107.40.4&mode=detail

Re: Communication concerning Matt Dunkley

Thank you for your recent communication on one of our sites.

However, as you are aware, through legal representation we previously asked you to provide information and records concerning Matt Dunkley, including the circumstances surrounding his removal from investigation and/or departure from Victoria, Australia. You declined to provide that information.

Instead, you stated:

“Over the past 10 months you have sent an excessive number of emails to IBAC.”

That does not answer the substantive requests that were made.

The Honourable Ben Carroll MP of Victoria also stated in correspondence that you should provide the information you held concerning Matt Dunkley. In those circumstances, continued refusal to address the actual requests appears increasingly difficult to justify and, in my view, manifestly unreasonable.

On 8 May 2025, I received a letter from Mr. Patrick Rundle, Deputy Official Secretary (Program), encouraging me to pursue my concerns with OVIC. I have done so, yet significant procedural failures remain unresolved.

Summary of Complaints:

1. IBAC Complaint — Ref: F243411550406 (24 December 2024)
I submitted a complaint seeking disclosure of information relating to Mr. Dunkley’s alleged misconduct and associated criminal activity under Operation Dunham and the Ultranet affair. Despite repeated follow-ups, IBAC has failed to provide complete documentation, and key evidence remains undisclosed.

2. OVIC Complaint — Ref: CD/25/5885 (11 February 2025)
Following IBAC’s incomplete response, I submitted a formal complaint to OVIC concerning procedural irregularities, a lack of data protection compliance, and failure to disclose evidence. The lack of adequate response raises concern over a possible coordinated cover-up.

3. Additional Concerns:

Failure of both IBAC and OVIC to meet statutory obligations under FOI and data protection law
Potential criminal concealment or suppression of information
Irregular communication and procedural inconsistencies

Call for Action:

Due to the continued lack of transparency and procedural adherence, I am now escalating this matter formally. I respectfully request that:

MI6 and SIS be notified regarding the handling of this matter, as I believe there are cross-jurisdictional implications and potential breaches of national/international standards.
An independent investigation be initiated into:
- The conduct of Mr. Matthew Dunkley
- IBAC’s failure to disclose documents under FOI
- OVIC’s handling of this matter
An external review be conducted into Operation Dunham and the Ultranet scandal’s continued ramifications.

This matter is now ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. I am copying all related agencies, including NICCY, the Serious Fraud Office (UK), Action Fraud, and the Office of the Governor of Victoria.

I am available to provide supporting evidence, correspondence trails, and further clarification as needed.

Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. I trust it will be handled with the urgency and gravity it warrants.

Documents relating to Matt Dunkley’s departure or “exit plan” from Australia;
Documents concerning the ending, removal or discontinuance of any investigation concerning him;
Correspondence, notes, reports or other records relating to those matters; and
The recording made at Bunny’s Bar, or any recording or transcript held by you, in which Dunkley is reported to have made disclosures concerning alleged criminal conduct in the United Kingdom.

I am perfectly willing to remove the communication to which you have objected once you provide a substantive response to the information requests that have repeatedly been put to you.

If you contend that any of the requested material does not exist, is not held by you, has been destroyed, or cannot lawfully be disclosed, please state that explicitly and identify the basis for that position rather than simply referring to the volume of correspondence previously sent.

Warm regards,

Martin Newbold

http://www.martinnewbold.co.uk
www.thestealingofemily.co.uk stealingofemily.world