Mark Filmer on His new book Three Steel Teeth
In Three Steel Teeth: Wide Comb Shears and Woolshed Wars, Orange-based writer and former journalist Mark Filmer documents the four years of industrial chaos that beset the wool industry when a small group of ‘rebel’ shearers sought to have a longstanding ban on wide-toothed shearing combs overturned.
The wide comb shearing dispute of the early 1980’s was to become one of the most violent chapters in Australian rural history.
This week, Orange City Life sat down with Mark to talk about his fascinating new book.
How did you come to write about this particular chapter of Australian history?
In 2001, I was covering court and I met a local solicitor Paul Longhurst. He and I just got chatting and somehow, I don't know how, we end up talking about the wide comb shearing dispute. Paul knew a lot about it and he was telling me a lot of the local aspects of the dispute and it just got me interested. His last words to me were, ‘It is a great story, someone should write a book about it.’
So, you’ve been working on this book for 18 years?
I didn't walk away and think I'm going to write a book, but a few months later that conversation stuck with me and then I just started reading up on the wide comb dispute, I came down here to the library and went through some of the old archives, microfiche versions of the local paper and it started to snowball from there…
In 2016, I quit my job and I thought I’d spend 12 months writing it, but I ended up doing another 6 months’ worth of research and then it took me the best part of 18 months to write it. So, it has gone on for a long, long time, but probably two years of intense work.
What was is it about this story that captivated you?
Initially I got interested, because there seemed to be a lot of local connections. But when I started to look at it, one of the really intriguing things was that this was such a minor change to the shearing combs — The standard gauge was ten teeth, the wide comb had an extra three teeth. It is just a slightly wider comb and you'd think, why would there be such a big deal over that? But this went on for more than four years and it got incredibly violent over this tiny change and I thought that is quite fascinating.
Why exactly were those three extra teeth considered such a big deal by the AWU?
They objected to the wide combs on several grounds: they said that the wider width of the comb would mean it requires a greater force to push through the fleece of the sheep and that would lead to more injuries to shearers; they also argued it would lead to more second cuts to the wool, where the shearer has to go back over a bit they haven't cut properly; and they also argued it would cause more skin cuts to the sheep. They were the three main arguments, but they also had this fear that woolgrowers would use the wide comb as a bit of a sneaky way of reducing their pay rates.
As you cover in your book, all the evidence from those who used them was that wide combs were just as easy to use, didn’t damage the fleece and were more productive. Why did the union fight this technological change so hard?
It is really hard to know. No one in the world works as hard as a shearer and you would think any union that represented that group of workers would make a really big effort if any technology came along that could improve their lot in life. You would think they’d at least be open to trialling it, but the union flatly refused to have trials, they just were totally against it.
The NSW branch of the union was headed up by two really powerful labour party figures, Ernie Ecob and Charlie Oliver, and the NSW Branch of the Union seemed to be a little bit more radical than the other branches. I think in particular Ernie Cobb and Charlie Oliver had a lot of sway over the rank and file members and it was their influence on the members — and this is just my view — that helped the NSW Branch have this really hard stance against wide combs.
So, if these two strong personalities weren't in the thick of it, do you believe things may have been resolved with less drama?
I think so; I think it probably would have been a less protracted dispute. All the farmer groups were actually prepared to sit down at the table and make concessions, but the union never at any stage sat down to negotiate. The great irony is the union could have sat down at the table, won some improvements in conditions for its members, and it would still be a significant part of the industry today, but it flatly refused to negotiate.
Why was there so much passion around this issue, enough to lead to violence?
It was a dispute that seemed to have its own momentum, it just seemed to escalate and escalate and no one was prepared to back down. Because it was so drawn out, then I think tensions just got worse and worse and the groups became more and more bitter rivals. Every time they met up there were fights in pubs and clubs and there were union shearers raiding sheds where the rebel shearers were working. There was an open gun battle in Coleraine. It is a sleepy little town of 1200 people and there's two groups of rival shearing teams firing guns at each other in a suburban street! Two Kiwi shearers got shot and ended up in hospital— just incredibly outrageous stuff!
Given that the Wide Comb was brought to Australia by New Zealand shearers did xenophobia play any part in this?
New Zealanders only became a factor at the back end of the dispute; I think the union was losing the dispute then they looked for someone to blame. They started to put out all these myths about New Zealand Shearers; that New Zealand Shearers paid no tax — that's wrong, they actually paid a higher proportion of tax than Australian Shearers; that when they went home they were able to get their taxes reimbursed – wrong; that they were involved in tax avoidance schemes on mass — It was just absolutely piffle!
And after the dispute they kept campaigning for years saying that New Zealand shearers were out here taking all our jobs, they are destroying the conditions in the industry and they kept campaigning up until the early 1990s.
What makes this dispute different to other major industrial disputes in the history of the shearing industry?
The difference is that this one was so drawn out, over four years, and it was more violent, even though those other disputes were also violent… And I think the outcome; the union lost big time and they handled it so badly that their members just started to abandon them.
Just what was the fallout from this dispute for the AWU?
The really sad thing is for the AWU — they had a really proud history in the shearing industry, and they'd done a lot of really good things in the industry over the years — but with this dispute they got it wrong… After it lost the dispute, the union lost 60 percent of their pastoral members within six months, because when they started using wide combs, they realised they were better and wondered why have we been fighting for four years over this?
You don't have to be an industrial relations expert to realise that if you're maintaining ‘implacable, hostile opposition’ to a technology that is actually more productive and is going to make the shearer’s life better, then you are going to lose the dispute. There is no way you are going to win it and unfortunately that was the way it played out.
Mark Filmer’s book, Three Steel Teeth: Wide Comb Shears and Woolshed Wars, is published by Ginninderra Press and can be purchased through Collins Booksellers in Orange