Academic scepticism seems to be the proper attitude for such research, reasoning and faith.

The article came to the attention of a law professor in Melbourne called Wolfgang Friedman.

As a German Jewish judge, Friedman had fled the Nazi regime in 1934.

His international network of legal scholars was wide and influential.

We don't know exactly how, but Friedman and Tamalo must have connected because by 1951, Tamalo was at the University of Melbourne undertaking a Masters of Arts.

That same year, Friedman connected him with Julius Stone, who was a professor of international law and jurisprudence at the University of Sydney.

Stone needed someone with Tamilo's skills and knowledge to help him write a book about international law.

And I think trying to recreate that in the northern suburbs of Sydney is something worth remembering that they did, that what we often think of about 1950s suburbia in Australia is made more complicated and maybe more interesting because of the existence of groups like this.

The big four consulting firms, KPMG, EY, Deloitte and PwC have all been under fire recently for one reason or another, but starting with the most recent scandal, what did KPMG do and what does it tell us about how these big firms operate?

This scandal started in 2023 when information that was obtained by KPMG's client Lendlease, confidential information, was then shared with various people within KPMG to assist it to obtain success in the tender for another client.

a corporate account i think with westpac and so the initial issue that triggered this whole sequence of events and an ongoing scandal that continues to reverberate was about the misuse of confidential information belonging to a client of kpng that only came to light a year later within KPMG when a whistleblower, internal whistleblower, raised the concerns, but the catalogue of misconduct actually continued.

KPMG adopted the corporate whistleblower playbook and basically treated that whistleblower with content, forced the whistleblower out of the organisation, gaslit the whistleblower, and undertook several investigations, undertook the investigations is perhaps being too generous.

I would say KPMG in fact sabotaged several investigations that were commissioned by KPMG with law firms so that KPMG would be exonerated from any wrongdoing.

Those, those investigations and their findings, or at least their findings have since been discredited.

Basically what we saw was and continue to see.

Like what should people understand about the pattern of behavior where they're using confidential information? How are they using it? Why is that such a scandal using confidential information in one area, you know, to help them win clients in another area? Like what's the significance of that?

The big four consulting firms, KPMG, EY, Deloitte and PwC have all been under fire recently for one reason or another, but starting with the most recent scandal, what did KPMG do and what does it tell us about how these big firms operate?

This scandal started in 2023 when information that was obtained by KPMG's client Lendlease, confidential information, was then shared with various people within KPMG to assist it to obtain success in the tender for another client.

corporate account, I think with Westpac.

And so the initial issue that triggered this whole sequence of events and an ongoing scandal that continues to reverberate was about the misuse of confidential information belonging to a client of KPMG.

That only came to light a year later within KPMG when a whistleblower, internal whistleblower raised the concerns um but the the catalog of misconduct actually continued kpmg adopted the the corporate whistleblower playbook and basically treated that whistleblower with content forced the whistleblower out of the organization gaslit the whistleblower and undertook several investigations, undertook the investigations is perhaps being too generous.

I would say KPMG in fact sabotaged several investigations that were commissioned by KPMG with law firms so that KPMG would be exonerated from any wrongdoing.

Those investigations and their findings, or at least their findings, have since been discredited.

Like what should people understand about the pattern of behavior where they're using confidential information? How are they using it? Why is that such a scandal using confidential information in one area, you know, to help them win clients in another area? Like what's the significance of that?

But the Greens' Justice and Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Senator David Shoebridge, who I spoke to, says inviting a head of state in the wake of a tragedy is a deliberate diplomatic and political choice, not an automatic one.

Well, there's no off-the-shelf protocol to deal with something as appalling as the violence we saw in Bondi, this deeply appalling targeted antisemitic attack against the Jewish community in Bondi.

Uh, I mean, there are many ways you could respond to that with international guests.

I'm, I'm sure there would be members of the broader Jewish community around the world who could come and give spiritual support, social support, counseling support.

There would be religious leaders that could be called upon to provide that kind of support.

But instead, the Prime Minister decided to pick an incredibly divisive figure who's the head of a state that is currently defending a series of court prosecutions accusing it of genocide, inviting the head of state where the prime minister of that same country and senior military leaders have arrest warrants against them in the International Criminal Court for appalling war crimes.

The idea that this was some kind of automatic protocol is just, I think, a plainly false thing.

How do you reconcile those views with your own concerns?

So what do you say to that argument that in the wake of the Bondi massacres, politics should be set aside so that a leader can show their respect for the victims and families of the Bondi massacre?

Nothing about this dispute and this conflict can be depoliticized.

We've seen- As soon as the Bondi massacre occurred, sordid political maneuvering right throughout the political system.

It is already clear that this visit has been politicized.

Those organizations that urge the government to invite Herzog here have seized on the acceptance of that invitation, and the invitation extended to Herzog to argue that Australia should use the opportunity to reset its relationship with Israel.

There's gonna be photo opportunities with the governor general, with the prime minister, God knows what else.

Um, this is a very bad mistake.

So where does that leave us? How do we begin to heal some of those wounds within the Jewish community and in the nation more broadly when it comes to all of this?