Anneke van Mosseveld, PhD, B.Ec (Hons), Dip.Teach | University of New England - Australia (original) (raw)

Books by Anneke van Mosseveld, PhD, B.Ec (Hons), Dip.Teach

The book traces the history of the Australian Government Clothing Factory from 1912 to 1995. Goi... more The book traces the history of the Australian Government Clothing Factory from 1912 to 1995. Going beyond the Schumpeterian theory of innovation, it seeks out the driving forces that evolved into innovation of the Australian Army uniform.

Papers by Anneke van Mosseveld, PhD, B.Ec (Hons), Dip.Teach

Australian Economic History Review, 2018

Dissertation Summary - describing how the Australian Government Clothing Factory, which was respo... more Dissertation Summary - describing how the Australian Government Clothing Factory, which was responsible for the production of the Australian Army uniforms since its establishment in 1912 in South Melbourne, collaborated with scientists and others to introduce innovation in the uniforms and in the production process. This is set within a framework of Schumpeterian ideas of innovation.

The Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factory, 2018

The original version of the book was inadvertently published with the wrong graph. Figure 7.5 has... more The original version of the book was inadvertently published with the wrong graph. Figure 7.5 has now been updated.

The 1930s represented a decade of consolidation for the Australian Government Clothing Factory, b... more The 1930s represented a decade of consolidation for the Australian Government Clothing Factory, but the demands placed upon the Factory as a result of the Second World War led to shortages of uniforms. Having been established in 1912 with what was then modern equipment, the Factory was now in need of an equipment and production overhaul. The types of uniforms produced by the Factory had also expanded as additional units had sprung up, including the Australian Women’s Army Service (AWAS), requiring separate uniforms. Many of the Factory’s lines were short production runs, which did not assist the efficient running of the Factory, and was also a complaint often heard by private contractors. However, an analysis of output per employee shows that the Factory was still performing better than the private clothing sector. Nevertheless, it was time to streamline the Factory’s production lines and the supply of raw materials. New ways to place orders and to run the production were investigat...

In many Western countries from the 1980s onwards, government-owned enterprises were corporatised ... more In many Western countries from the 1980s onwards, government-owned enterprises were corporatised in preparation for sale into private hands, sold directly or otherwise off-loaded as governments distanced themselves from direct involvement in industry. In Australia, the debate centred on the future of the Australian Government Clothing Factory and, indeed, the future of other government defence industries. Several committees reviewed the role of the Clothing Factory and the Department of Defence was heard to express the fear that the production of military clothing could end up outside Australia. The Utz Committee was split on the issue, with Senators Button and Siddons opposing the sale of the Clothing Factory. By the end of the 1980s, the government had slipped the Factory quietly into the corporate arsenal of Australian Defence Industries, which had been set up to prepare several defence industries for sale. This act sealed the financial fate and public ownership of the Clothing F...

Scientists played a crucial role in the transformation of the Australian Army’s uniform and sever... more Scientists played a crucial role in the transformation of the Australian Army’s uniform and several key developments are highlighted. The 1930s, in particular, produced an upsurge in Army-related research and development activity. Under the leadership of Professor Dakin experiments in camouflage patterns suitable for different natural environments were conducted, incorporating zoologists and botanists as well as artists. Camouflage patterned Army outfits became part and parcel of the Army’s clothing. In tropical areas, such as New Guinea and Vietnam, a green uniform was used. Again, scientists became involved in experimenting with green dyes reflecting a jungle background without causing skin irritations to the wearer. Dakin and the Army developed close links with the chemical industry, such as Bradford Dye Works and Colgate-Palmolive Pty. Ltd. (the latter producing dark grease to hide skin colour). Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. (ICI) conducted experiments to obtain Malachite Gr...

Whereas scientific research was and is a significant driver of innovation in the development of t... more Whereas scientific research was and is a significant driver of innovation in the development of the Australian Army uniform, other equally important factors have also contributed to its innovation. These include: the influences and characteristics of the locations where Australians fought in battle; changes in combat methods (this chapter focuses on chemical warfare); and comments and complaints from the soldiers themselves. War locations are directly linked to climatological influences and this had led to significant uniform changes. The need for dry and clean clothing and socks was the driving force for the construction of bath and laundry buildings on the Western Front. The introduction of gas during the First World War brought about the supply and further development of gas masks and other protective equipment and clothing. Chemical warfare had made its entrance on the battlefields and today is one of the important factors in the development of protective military clothing. The ...

The Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factory

The First World War placed enormous strains on the production of the Australian Army’s uniforms b... more The First World War placed enormous strains on the production of the Australian Army’s uniforms by the government-owned Clothing Factory, in terms of both quantity and timeliness of supply. Ironically, by the end of the First World War in 1918, the Clothing Factory found itself with a serious oversupply of Army uniforms in stock. Another government-owned business, the Woollen Cloth Factory in Geelong, having produced woollen blankets and other woollen fabrics, such as horse blankets, found itself in the same predicament. There had been a sudden slump in the demand for war-related products. Fortunately, the Clothing Factory had diversified into other markets: it also produced uniforms for the Australian postal services, railways and Victorian tramways, and was able to switch over to these products. Moreover, returned soldiers were each provided with a civilian suit of high-quality wool tweed, keeping both factories in business in the short term. The Returned Soldiers & Sailors Imperial League of Australia took it upon itself to trade the Factories’ wool tweed suits, Army greatcoats and woollen blankets to those in need, returning a profit both to itself and to the factories.

The Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factory

The establishment of the Australian Government Clothing Factory in South Melbourne in 1912 create... more The establishment of the Australian Government Clothing Factory in South Melbourne in 1912 created upheavals in the private clothing sector, by introducing higher wages and investing significant amounts in the purchase of the latest sewing equipment. New technology and maintaining the lead in innovation marked the life of the Factory throughout the century. How this was financed by a special Trust Fund is explained. The discussion on wages, employment, investment and factory output is supported by data obtained from national archival documents. The Factory was by far the largest clothing factory in Australia and it was owned and controlled by the government. However, from the beginning demand for military uniforms was extremely high as Australian troops took to the battlefields of the First World War. Demand outstripped the Factory’s production capacity and a system was devised to engage the private sector to fill the gaps in subcontracts of significant amounts of clothing orders. The interaction gave the Factory the power to impose its own modern systems and techniques on the private clothing contractors, thereby spreading modernisation throughout the wider clothing sector.

The Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factory

Army uniforms have several specific functions, including: to identify the wearer as belonging to ... more Army uniforms have several specific functions, including: to identify the wearer as belonging to a certain nation; to protect during battles; and to signify rank and status. Accordingly, the uniform is of national significance and by law its design cannot be copied without authorisation. The design of the uniform is protected as a part of the nation’s intellectual property (IP). Each new version of the design must be described in detail, entered into an IP system, numbered and sealed. Thereafter it is referred to as a ‘sealed pattern’. However, it cannot be found in the usual national IP registers. By meticulous and often time-consuming searches through archival documents, evidence of a separate IP system has come to light, a system held by the Army’s administration in collaboration with the Australian Government Clothing Factory. Together, they influenced not only the specifications of the uniform’s design, but also the use of specified fabrics, buttons and the like, and the production methods to be used in the manufacturing process. This gave the Army and Clothing Factory the power to dictate processes to any subcontractors involved in the production and the system became a gateway to the introduction of innovation in segments of the Australian clothing industry.

Until Federation in 1901, the colonies of Australia each had their own military forces, more ofte... more Until Federation in 1901, the colonies of Australia each had their own military forces, more often than not boasting flamboyantly colourful uniforms. A major reorganisation took place when Major-General Hutton introduced the Dress Regulations in 1903 and transformed the colonial units into a national defence force, incorporating new uniforms and other innovations. Descriptions are provided of various colonial uniforms and their design prototypes of regiments in the UK. Hutton’s innovative reorganisation plans provided an impetus for another innovator, Senator Pearce, who eventually succeeded, by using the terms of the Defence Act of 1909, in obtaining parliamentary approval for the construction of a dedicated government factory for uniform production. The policy debates leading up to the birth of the Australian Government Clothing Factory provide insight into the attitudes at the time, looking towards the Royal Army Clothing Factory of Pimlico, UK, to provide guidance for the constr...

By the end of the Second World War it was clear that the premises occupied by the Australian Gove... more By the end of the Second World War it was clear that the premises occupied by the Australian Government Clothing Factory in South Melbourne were no longer satisfactory or safe for the production of Army and other uniforms. It was time to review and reinvigorate the entire operation. Several working parties were appointed, none of which were ever to suggest to abolish the Factory altogether. A reorganisation involving the transfer away of the cap and canvas sections took place in 1952, but this did not deflect from the fact that the Factory had become outmoded. Further reports and cost estimates were tabled during the following years. The crucial report for the decision to build a new factory came from the Allison–Brewster inquiry of 1964. This report recognised the value of the Factory as a ‘laboratory for garment design and development’: It was driving innovation by experimenting with new techniques and designs. Once it had been decided to build a new Factory, its new location beca...

Australian Economic History Review, 2018

The wearing of a uniform creates a social division within society: those that belong to the group... more The wearing of a uniform creates a social division within society: those that belong to the group identified by the uniform and those that do not. The wearing of a military uniform gives rise to additional sentiments, especially those of national pride. It serves to distinguish the nation from others and thus must be protected from potential imitators. In 1912 the relatively new Australian Government established the Australian Government Clothing Factory in South Melbourne to produce uniforms for their fledgling Army. In collaboration with the Defence Department the Factory became the driving force behind innovations, design specifications, approvals and design protection. In times of high demand, scores of private clothing firms were contracted to deliver the required quantities of military garments. They were subject to detailed specifications describing the methods of manufacture. Innovation introduced by the Clothing Factory had long lasting effects upon the Australian clothing sector and the development of some industries, in particular the cotton industry. The manner in which these processes were managed is the subject of this paper. For the first time archival documents are delivering evidence of the impact of innovation and intellectual property management of the Australian military uniforms.

Combat uniforms play an important part in the protection, comfort and functionality of soldiers, ... more Combat uniforms play an important part in the protection, comfort and functionality of soldiers, and yet, the history of the uniforms worn by Australian soldiers throughout the twentieth century has largely been ignored by Australian scholars. When discussing aspects of the Australian defence industry, most authors seek to analyse technological developments and expenditure of a war materiel nature, such as military aircraft, war ships, heavy armament and the like. Military historians are mostly concerned with the political, diplomatic, strategic, economic, social or biographical details of those involved in the conduct of war. However, to produce and deliver uniforms suitable for different climates and types of operation, in the correct numbers and sizes requires a substantial mechanism of research and development (R&D), pattern design, national intellectual property protection, Department of Defence planning, mass production and logistics. All these activities spring from a nation’s defence requirements as they evolve over time. When discussing the respective roles of industry and government in industrial reform and innovation, Austrian-born economist and political scientist Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) entertained the view that the government has the capacity to lead the way and can itself play an active entrepreneurial role by involving itself in state-run businesses. The Australian Government’s ownership of a number of factories which manufactured a range of goods for defence purposes is a case in point. This paper has selected one of these - the production of military uniforms by the Australian Government Clothing Factory – and after a painstaking search through hundreds of Australian National Archives and Australian War Memorial files has unearthed a story of innovation, business and economic leadership for which the government is not usually credited, but which nevertheless serves to document that a state-run enterprise can be a successful operation, at least in an environment where the government is both supplier and the only client.

This paper argues that from 1912, the year in which the Clothing Factory was established in South Melbourne, until the mid-1980s when the factory was sold, the Australian Government was directly involved in the production of Australian Army combat uniforms and steered technological innovation from the raw materials needed for the uniform fabrics to the logistics required to deliver bales of garments to battle locations overseas. Furthermore, it is important to note that a nation’s military uniform is a key indicator of that nation’s identity and as such the colours and designs of the uniform can be seen as the nation’s intellectual property. As with any intellectual property, the designs of the uniforms are specified in great detail and registered in an administrative system of pattern specifications which can be best described as a dedicated patent register. The Clothing Factory experimented with the designs, manufacturing techniques and the latest technology in sewing machinery. Each new pattern was submitted for approval at the highest level (the Military Board made the recommendations and the Minister himself approved the changes formally). This was followed by the making up of a sample pattern which was subsequently sealed and registered. Every uniform made up from that moment, had to comply stitch-for-stitch with the sealed pattern. Whenever private firms were sub-contracted to take up the slack in busy times, they too had to comply with the latest sewing methods and so felt the influence of the government’s role as the ultimate driver of the technology and production chain. The Schumpeterian view that the government can play an active entrepreneurial role is supported by the events shown in this case study.

The paper traces the operations of the Australian Government Clothing Factory and the Army’s requirements for uniforms throughout the First and Second World Wars and up to the end of the Vietnam War. It highlights a number of technological innovations within the Clothing Factory and points to clothing specifications requiring the use of the latest textile and sewing machinery - for the mills producing the fabrics as well as in the sewing techniques required of sub-contractors. The Australian Government was quick to seek out designs for uniforms appropriate in offshore Pacific and Southeast Asian climates as well as in its own territories in Northern Queensland and on Thursday Island and instigated the search for better cotton drill fabrics. In the early part of the twentieth century the Australian cotton growing industry was in its infancy and was unable to deliver the raw material suitable for the Army’s uniforms. Cotton fabrics had been supplied by India and Great Britain, but the new fabric specifications required the use of a different cotton plant variety, up to then only cultivated in Southern States of America. Through the efforts of the Australian Government this variety was introduced in Narrabri and other locations and formed the basis of the modern Australian cotton industry.

By the late 1930s, Government-driven innovation surfaced once more, this time in the search for camouflage uniforms. Experiments were carried out by a team of researchers under the direction of Professor W.J. Dakin, Technical Director of Camouflage, Department of Home Security. Using the expertise of zoologists, botanists and artists, the Camouflage Team devised patterns of camouflage for woodland, desert and tropical environments and effectively built the foundations for ongoing camouflage research in Australia which has found expression in the Disruptive Pattern Camouflage Uniform (DPCU) worn at present by Army personnel in Australia and the Disruptive Pattern Desert Uniform (DPDU) worn by Australian troops in Afghanistan.

Government-driven innovation is also evident in the search for green dyes used for the ‘jungle green’ uniforms used in the Asian battlefields. It was found that some men suffered from chrome dermatitis from certain dyes, so the search was on for a better solution and many experiments took place in the race for a safe product. By the Second World War, in the midst of shortages of raw materials hitherto imported from Great Britain and the USA, the Australian Government considered setting up a local plant but eventually settled upon a collaboration arrangement with US sources of supply.

In view of the scarcity of existing literature documenting Government activities in the enterprise of military uniform production, this paper relies heavily upon primary sources of information, in particular upon Army and Department of Defence correspondence located in the National Archives of Australia and the Australian War Memorial. The story of Government-driven innovation, as Schumpeter would probably have envisioned it, has finally emerged as an Australian case study.

The Australian Government owned Clothing Factory in Melbourne and the Woollen Cloth Factory in Ge... more The Australian Government owned Clothing Factory in Melbourne and the Woollen Cloth Factory in Geelong were valuable tools in the Australian war machinery during the First World War. The former was vital for the making of military uniforms, and the latter for producing top quality woollen fabrics. But while their wartime role is well documented, their post-war role has hitherto remained unrecognised. To address this, this paper will explore the post-war activities of the Clothing Factory and Woollen Cloth Factory and argue that they served a special purpose in helping Australians find their feet after the warat a profit.

Conference Presentations by Anneke van Mosseveld, PhD, B.Ec (Hons), Dip.Teach

The paper describes the clothing firms that were contracted by the Australian Department of Defen... more The paper describes the clothing firms that were contracted by the Australian Department of Defence to produce garments for the Australian Army prior to the establishmen in 1912 of the Australian Government Clothing Factory.

Australian Economic History Review, 2018

The Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factory, 2018

The Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factory

Australian Economic History Review, 2018

Journal of Australian Colonial History, 2017

Book review of Craig Wilcox, Badge, Boot, Button: The Story of Australian Uniforms