CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:15): I move:

That this council notes with concern the influence of corporate sponsorship on public education.

I have put this motion to the council today because I believe there is a disturbing trend emerging that has significant implications for the integrity of public education in South Australia. That trend is for the state education system to look to the corporate world to provide funding for education. The example I will talk about today is that of Raytheon Australia.

Raytheon Australia is a company that most people have never heard of, yet it is one of the biggest multinational global armaments manufacturers in the world. Its relationship with the South Australian education system is that this company is now partnering Aberfoyle Park High School in relation to its Ignite program, which is a program for gifted and talented students. The program was summed up very neatly in the local Hills and Valley Messenger at the end of last year as follows:

Aberfoyle Park High School is partnering with one of Australia's biggest defence companies to help students prepare for careers in engineering and science.

Raytheon Australia will give the school $450,000 over three years to buy state-of-the-art computers as part of a strategy to overcome a projected shortage of 25,000 engineers by 2011.

Staff from the Canberra-based defence company, Australia's third largest, will visit the school to educate its 250 gifted program students about science and engineering careers.

They will also mentor teachers on how to prepare students for the industry.

It goes on to say:

By the end of 2011, all year eight to 10 students in the program will be given a laptop computer.

The company itself in its own publications describing this partnership arrangement with Aberfoyle Park High School basically agrees with that summary. It regards it as a charitable act and something that has no particular pay-off for the company, it would say, but is really about giving kids access to computers to ignite their passion for maths and science.

The company in its own material and on its own website might emphasise the altruistic nature of this arrangement: however, other reports show that the company is particularly aimed at recruiting the brightest and best of our maths and science students to work for it, and to work particularly in the defence industry. It has been described in industry publications as follows:

The bestowment is part of the Raytheon Australia's commitment to cultivating a new generation of scientists and engineers to undertake complex defence projects, such as the Sea 4000 air warfare destroyers.

So, here is the company, in one of our schools, promoting careers in the manufacture of armaments to our brightest and best young students.

The school has embraced the partnership at one level, with hundreds of free computers to be given to its students—it might not be hundreds but might be dozens—and one could say, 'Why wouldn't it?' The Aberfoyle Park High School newsletter of June this year sets out that the school was successful in getting a Premier's industry award which enabled one of the assistant principals to spend 10 days working with Raytheon Australia at its premises; and the Premier's award also provided for some time out of the classroom for teachers to help prepare materials that relate to the partnership agreement with this company. Apparently, this work, this partnership, this placement of an assistant principal in the company, will be showcased at the Premier's Industry Awards presentation day in December.

At first blush, people might think there is nothing wrong with any of this. Here we have a company—a very large company, with a large presence in Australia and a large presence in South Australia—that creates jobs and wealth, so why should we do anything other than embrace it? Let us look at what this company is, who it is and what it does.

First, members need to know that Raytheon is the world's largest producer of guided missiles. When you run through a list of some of its products most of them are almost household names. Its missiles include the Maverick, the Sparrow, the Sidewinder, the Tomahawk, the Hawk, the Patriot and the Sea Sparrow. All of these weapons have featured in news reports over the past decade or two in relation to most of the world's conflicts.

Basically, this company makes missiles; the missiles are used in conflicts. The most recent conflict that members would be aware of would be the Israeli offensive in Gaza, and also the offensive in 2006 in Lebanon. In fact, it was that 2006 offensive in Lebanon that did encourage one local community effectively to rise up against Raytheon to express its displeasure at that company's operations. The community that I am talking about is the community of Derry in the northern part of Ireland.

A case was resolved only last year and it was referred to as the Raytheon 9. Acting on information that Raytheon missiles were actively assisting in Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and also that those missiles were being built in the Derry factory of Raytheon, nine activists forced their way into Raytheon's offices on 9 August 2006. They destroyed the computers, documents and the mainframe of the office, and they proceeded to occupy the factory for eight hours prior to their arrest.

I say at this stage that I do not condone that type of action in any circumstances. The Greens' policy is very much based on one of non-violence, so I am not telling this story to say that these people need to be applauded: I am simply recording it as a matter of fact that that is what they did. Then, of course, they went to trial and they were charged with criminal damage and affray. According to the local newspaper in Derry, the Derry Journal, of 11 June 2008 the people who had readily admitted entering the Raytheon factory, demolishing their computers and causing a large amount of damage were all acquitted. The newspaper reports:

There were jubilant scenes in a Belfast court today as six Derry anti-war protesters were unanimously acquitted of destroying property belonging to multinational arms company Raytheon. As the Crown Court jury of four men and seven women were led from court 14 at the Laganside complex, the six men and their supporters who had packed the public gallery clapped and cheered in appreciation of the not guilty verdicts.

The article goes on:

Speaking outside the court, Colm Bryce declared that their actions had been 'completely vindicated' and that the verdicts were 'very welcome to ourselves and our families'. He said he wanted to dedicate the not guilty verdicts to the bereaved families in Qana in the Lebanon who had been bombed by Israeli forces using missiles made by Raytheon.

My recollection is that these were bunker buster bombs, one of which busted the cellar and killed many dozen Lebanese children and others. Mr Bryce said:

We feel vindicated in taking the action that we did.

Mr Bryce further said:

The jury have accepted we were reasonable in our belief that the Israeli defence forces were guilty of war crimes in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. The action we took was intended to have and did have the effect of hampering or delaying the commission of war crimes.

The article continues:

He also called on politicians and the citizens of Derry 'to say in unequivocal terms that Raytheon is not welcome in our city'. 'We have not denied or apologised for what we did', he added. 'Personally speaking, and I believe I speak for all of us, it was the best thing I have ever done in my life', declared Mr McCann. Over the course of the last four weeks, the jury had heard that, following repeated bombings of Lebanese property in which numerous civilians died, the group of anti-war protesters forced their way into the Raytheon plant in Derry and caused significant damage to its server and computers. The six all claimed their reason for doing so was to protect the lives and property of people in the Lebanon from being attacked by Israeli forces who bought their weapons, weaponry systems and missiles from Raytheon.

It is very sobering when you have this information to realise that this is the company that has been welcomed with open arms into a South Australian high school, and a company whose money we are happy to take to provide for computers and other educational resources for our students. The irony as well, I guess, is that it is computers being provided but in the town of Derry computers were the target of those particular activities. As I say, I do not tell that story to vindicate their actions: I tell the story to indicate the strength of their feeling—very much similar to the so-called ploughshares movement, where people have taken on themselves to destroy military equipment and turn them back into ploughshares, which is, I guess, the reverse of what normally happens.

In terms of what approach we should take as a state to offers from companies such as this, my position is fairly clear. I do not think we should be taking sponsorship from companies such as Raytheon. Clearly, there is a line to be drawn and different people will draw it differently. I can remember as a chairperson in my local primary school council having a big debate about whether we could have the logo on soccer shirts of a company with which one of the soccer dads was connected. The company was prepared to buy the soccer shirts if we would have the logo on the shirt.

However, it was a state primary school and, in the end, the community decided that they did not want corporate logos on school kids' soccer tops. I think we should also bear in mind that this argument about corporate sponsorship in schools is not new. In fact, as long ago as 1993, the education union had a policy position on the appropriate level of engagement between corporations and our education, and I will just read a couple of sentences from the AEU's policy on corporate sponsorship. The first thing it says is:

The AEU vehemently expresses opposition to the whole concept of corporate sponsorship of education systems, schools or curricular and opposes any attempts to increase the external funding component of education beyond traditional community fundraising.

It further states:

Present moves [and this is present, back in 1993] towards sponsorship compromise the professional integrity of teachers and divert them away from classroom teaching and into marketing and promotional activities which advantage business and allow the government's dubious cost-cutting agenda. These come at the expense of equitable quality education.

As we have seen, there are teachers who have basically, as a result of sponsorship, been spending time inside the offices of the armaments manufacturer.

The final aspect that I want to quote from the AEU's corporate sponsorship policy is as follows:

No sponsorship under any circumstances should be accepted from corporations involved in the ownership of armaments factories, sale or manufacture of armaments or environmentally damaging products.

It is clearly at odds with the government's intention for South Australia's future economic development to be driven by the defence industry. If we are going to have that industry in South Australia, I say we need to draw a very clear line between that sector's business activities and the role of our public education authorities to determine curriculum and the role of our state government to properly fund that education.

I think the Raytheon deal with the Aberfoyle Park High School is a bad deal. I am not saying that kids getting computers is bad, but I think it sends entirely the wrong message to not just the community but young people, that this particular company is somehow noble and benevolent and should be applauded for its generosity. I think the opposite is the case.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.