Should war memorials be built with money from the arms industry?

According to the BAE Systems plc website, "[s]upport for charities and community organisations helps foster good relationships with the communities near our sites in the countries in which we work." Globally in 2009, the company's investment in the community amounted, in time, cash and in-kind, to 13.8 million somethings – either $A or £; different company websites report the same figure but in different currencies.

Many such payments – by BAE or any other company – will be unexceptionable. Some will be difficult to categorise, like BAE's sponsorship deal with the Australian War Memorial, which includes naming rights to the "BAE Systems Theatre." The Memorial's director, retired Major General Steve Gower, has said that BAE is an "integral part" of the Memorial, where many aircraft built by BAE and its predecessors are on display.

It may seem incongruous or worse that defence suppliers should put money into war memorials, particularly new ones. It would be natural, however, for the MDC, composed entirely of retired military officers, to consider tapping the defence industry. Industry contacts made in uniform will still be strong. For example, MDC member and retired Air Marshal Doug Riding went from senior RAAF positions in materiel and aerospace systems acquisitions, and a final posting as Vice Chief of the Defence Force (July 1998 to 5 June 2000), to a directorship with BAE Systems Australia Holdings Limited (3 August 2000 to 16 July 2002). Air Marshal Riding is now (June 2011) a senior defence adviser to BAE Systems Australia. MDC chair, retired Lieutenant Colonel Mike Buick, was, in late 2010, National Project Manager, Barcoding Project, for BAE Systems Australia Logistics.

We have no evidence that corruption associated with defence industry corporate giving has happened or will happen in Canberra. On the other hand, Transparency International has recently included "Charitable Contributions and Sponsorship" in a list of "key corruption issues" facing defence suppliers globally.

Actual instances of charitable-giving corruption in the defence sector overseas seem to be rare, perhaps because they are well concealed within the complex financing of defence purchasing. In a 1990s South African case, again involving BAE Systems (then British Aerospace or BAe), the defence minister intervened on BAe's behalf after the company had donated five million rand ($US1 million) to a war veterans' association, of which the minister was a trustee.BAe said the donation had been made "to demonstrate that we wish to be good corporate citizens doing business in South Africa."

Transparency International's warning acknowledges that corporate giving could serve the same purpose as payments to third parties have served in the past for companies like BAE. Any project that is financed by the defence industry risks being tainted with the whiff of corruption surrounding the sector. That is the potential problem facing the proponents of Canberra's lakeside memorials.

The risk grows with secrecy. Transparency International says every enterprise, defence and otherwise, "should ensure that charitable contributions and sponsorships are not used as a subterfuge for bribery [and] … should publicly disclose all its charitable contributions and sponsorships." It is unfortunate, then, that the MDC offer secrecy to their donors. The MDC's website says: "The Committee will not disclose any details of Memorial(s) Development Committee Members, Donors or Supporters without the consent of said Members, Donors or Supporters." That is the sort of provision that would be attractive to tobacco companies funding lung cancer wards or to breweries donating to road trauma units.

Colonel Buick said on television in October 2010:

We have not had any discussion whatsoever with any company which will be providing money from overseas or anywhere else. We are seeking funding support from wealthy and philanthropic Australians. That's where we've gone, at the moment (emphasis added).

The highlighted words leave the way open for a change of fundraising strategy in the future, especially as global financial circumstances constrain alternative sources. The MDC's website still says, "Priority # 1 [for fund-raising]: Australian and international companies interested in making significant financial contributions …" Philanthropists are only the second priority target, according to the website.

Would our war dead like to be memorialised with the profits from making the weapons that killed them? The MDC need to do two things: first, announce that they will not solicit or accept donations from the defence industry; secondly, undertake to disclose the source and amount of every donation received. Once these things are done, we can focus on the many other reasons why this ill-conceived project should not proceed.