Chapter 11: Conclusion

Precedents for internment in Australia partly explain the relative rapidity and thoroughness of internment of the Japanese in 1941–42. This was also partly due to long-held Australian fears about Japan. The descent of the Japanese upon Australia was confirmation of a deep-rooted Australian nightmare about the Yellow Peril. There was a generally held conception that Japanese were fanatical and inscrutable and that their “Japanese-ness” must override any possible loyalty to Australia. In addition, despite the attack on Pearl Harbor, World War II threatened Australia’s security far more directly than that of the mainland United States and Canada. Australia’s northern coastal towns were attacked during the early months of 1942. Prewar activities of the Nihonjin-kai in Australia seemed to indicate strong attachments to Japan and patriotic sentiments. The authorities were concerned about the potential for sabotage or aid being given to the Japanese military in the northern regions of Australia and its waters, the very areas where the highest concentration of Japanese was to be found. The government clearly felt wholesale internment could be justified on the grounds of security.

The policies applied to Japanese in Australia were simple and expedient. Those perceived as “Japanese” were interned with few exceptions. Where there was doubt about a person’s origins or allegiance, authorities tended to opt for internment. The Japanese community in Australia was easily identifiable and much smaller than its North American counterparts. The Australian authorities were theoretically able to classify Italian and German enemy aliens according to level of security risk based on such criteria as membership of Fascist organisations. There was only one category for Japanese based on presumed or proven existence of “Japanese-ness”. On 23 August 1946, the Acting Director-General of the Security Service wrote to Justice Simpson:

You will remember that in the Japanese cases there was nothing known against the bulk of them and that they were interned merely because they were Japanese, following upon an order issued by the Army in December 1941 that all Japanese were to be interned.1

There were precedents for this classification according to race or ethnic origin. According to Fischer, during World War I:

The Defence Department classified the internees simply by their ethnic background; it did not allow a category that would have recognised a German Australian identity. The overwhelming majority of the internees was thus simply regarded as “German”.2

In addition to security considerations, the “collar the lot” policy was justified by the War Cabinet when it was adopted on 9 May 1941 on the grounds that “Japanese nationals are not absorbed in this country as are many Germans and Italians”.3 The government was concerned to avoid a public backlash against a small, easily identifiable “enemy” minority. The Japanese in Australia were not included in government efforts to promote assimilation. The Immigration Restriction Act prohibited Japanese immigrants from naturalisation. Unlike the United States and Canada, Australia did not generally allow Japanese immigrants to bring existing families with them or to bring a Japanese wife to Australia after settlement. The large majority of indentured Japanese labourers in pearling and sugar-cane farming remained single. Those Japanese who did produce second or third generation Australian descendants were usually those who married white or black Australian women, but the number of second and third generation Australian descendants was small and they had no influence. Under the Nationality Law (1920–1930) Australian-born Japanese were regarded as “Japanese” and therefore enemy subjects under the National Security (Alien Control) Regulations.

However, in July 1946 Browne reviewed and reported on 94 cases involving 152 persons withheld from postwar deportation. They were mostly Australian-born or very long-term residents. The only case he classified as “justified internment” was that of Haruyoshi Yamashita of Thursday Island. Browne wrote:

Yamashita was regarded by the Military Authorities in 1st Military District as suspect and I think that there is little doubt that he has never changed his Japanese nationalistic views, although he states that he dislikes the militaristic policy of the Japanese Government. He was definitely suspect and his internment was justified.4

According to his daughter, “In hindsight he was not nationalistic any more than other Japanese on the island. He was president of the Nihonjin-kai and merely did his job.”5 Browne recommended his release in Australia on the basis that “the family should not be deprived of its head”.6 His concluding statements for almost all other cases questioned whether they should ever have been interned. In some cases, Browne clearly disapproved of actions taken. For example, he said of the Shiosaki family from Broome:

Shizuo Shiosaki is an Australian Japanese born at Broome … His wife is a half-caste aboriginal … It is difficult to see why this poor woman … who appears to be almost entirely aboriginal in outlook, was ever interned with her large family. She is quite unable to understand anything of a political nature … the children show a mingling of Jap and aboriginal blood … They are of no interest whatsoever from a security point of view and surely can never have been and it is pathetic that these children have had to be brought up in an enemy internment camp for over 4 years …7

There was other official recognition that some internments were not justified. Arthur Calwell, Chairman of the ACAC during the war and Australia’s first Minister for Immigration in 1945, wrote in 1947:

When passions are let loose by war it happened all too often that foreigners, whether or not of enemy origin, and even locally born persons bearing foreign names, became the object of denunciation and persecution … anyone familiar with the story must recognise that from the fall of France in June 1940 onwards a good deal of avoidable human misery was caused by some of the actions taken in connection with the control of aliens. In the nature of things, this may have been inevitable, for war as the democracies wage it is largely an affair of improvisation, and in urgent situations which demand prompt and effective action there is little time to weigh the niceties of human rights.8

Unlike the United States and Canada, where internees were distinguished from evacuees, everyone of Japanese ancestry interned in Australia was put in internment camps. In Australia, internees were treated as prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention and men were required to wear the same uniform as POWs. Japanese internees were compliant and complained little. They were regarded by camp authorities as model prisoners. After the immediate danger to Australia in the Pacific theatre of war passed, the authorities did relax policies and allow a few internees to be released, but the overall policy remained firm until the end of the war.

The Australian government legislated so that every action taken against people it classified as enemy aliens was lawful. This included those who were Australian-born. Overseas Japanese internees were not covered by Australian legislation, and the Australian government was not concerned with the legality of their internment. As was the case with Canada, the Australian Constitution did not contain any guarantees against deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law.9 La Nauze claims that it was thought unnecessary to include these because it was felt a “respectable society” did not need such safeguards. There was an innocent certainty that men of British descent would always act fairly.10

When interviewed, many Japanese ex-internees expressed gratitude for the treatment they received. Bevege agrees: “All internees stressed their high regard for the men who guarded them, and their general satisfaction with their food and treatment.”11 In addition, the authorities were scrupulously correct in their actions towards internees. The efficiency of the process in Australia is in marked contrast with the hesitant and inconsistent programs played out in North America. This can lead to the impression that internees had no cause for complaint or the government was justified in all of its actions. However, despite the unarguable correctness of the treatment of internees, at an individual level it could be argued that justice was not always served.

As a result of repatriation and immigration policy during the immediate postwar period, the Japanese community which had existed in Australia was almost eliminated. Its fate in Australia is paralleled by the experiences of other communities in the Nan’yo region. According to Konno and Fujisaki, Japanese communities throughout the Pacific region were victims of Japan’s own militaristic aggression. Japanese settlements in the Nan’yo region were uprooted and eliminated.12

The American and Canadian Japanese have been successful in obtaining compensation and admissions of liability from their respective governments. However, there is continuing concern among some North American Japanese that the gains made after the war may not be as permanent as they would desire and that governments could once again legislate to restrict the rights of minorities. In 1989 Sunahara commented on new Canadian legislation which was intended to prevent abuses of the past:

The new Emergencies Act is a great improvement over the War Measures Act, but perhaps its greatest flaw is that it is only an Act of Parliament. It can be abolished at any time and replaced with something worse.13

It is also important to ask if actions based on assumptions about ethnicity and race, such as wholesale internment, could happen again in Australia. The Australian equivalent of the War Measures Act, the National Security Act 1939–1946, was rescinded in 1950.14 Since 1948 discriminatory legislation in Australia has been steadily dismantled and human rights have increasingly been based on citizenship and not on ethnic origins. In 1948 the Australian Citizenship Act was passed. It contained the first statement of the concept of an “Australian citizen” and established a system for determining and granting citizenship.15 Although it was an improvement on earlier legislation, it still discriminated in favour of British subjects and against some other migrants on the basis of nationality.16 In 1975 the Racial Discrimination Act made discrimination based on “race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin” unlawful.17 The Australian Citizenship Amendment Act of 1984 finally removed references to “British Subject” and “Alien” and provided safeguards for the citizenship of children whose parents lose their citizenship.18

In the years following World War II, Australia also became a signatory to various international conventions on human rights. For the first time, international law started to affect the rights of Australian citizens. For example, in 1969 Australia became a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICEAFRD).19 In 1981 The Human Rights Commission (HRC) was established. It had a brief to examine Australian legislation and the actions of governments to determine if there were practices contrary to human rights or in contravention of the intent of international agreements.20 In its 1982 report on the Australian Citizenship Act of 1948, it noted:

While citizenship is regarded in international law as one area which falls completely within the discretion of a State, that very fact leads to the possibility of capricious action by the State towards those who are its citizens or who wish to have that status and emphasises the need for adequate protection of the law itself.21

It also found that the “concept and use of the term ‘alien’ has potential for giving rise to acts that are unlawful under section 9 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975”.22 In addition the Commission stated that the Citizenship Act of 1948 was inconsistent with the ICEAFRD, which includes the right to nationality regardless of race, colour, ethnicity or ethnic origin.23 In 1985 the HRC examined the 1958 Migration Act.24 It found that it was designed to facilitate enforcement of any current immigration policy.

An examination of the Parliamentary debates on the Migration Bill in 1958 points clearly to the fact that the Bill was seen as an instrument of control to be used for the continuation of policies and administrative practices adopted, and then further developed, by the authors and administrators of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901.

In reality, policy can override protective legislation and new legislation can always be passed. In the event of new international tensions or conflicts the Australian government of the day may once again decide to restrict the liberty of certain groups because they have the potential to aid enemies of common ancestry. As Calwell said, there may be little time to “weigh the niceties of human rights”.

In contrast to the Japanese, the Italian community in Australia has remained strong. Although large scale internment was imposed on them in Queensland and Western Australia in early 1942, Cresciani claims they “came out of the war years virtually unscratched, both in social and political terms … They were able to become again an integral part of the society in which they lived.”25 A number of factors could account for the difference in outcome for these two ethnic groups. Size of community, non-internment of families, acceptance of ex-internees and POWs as postwar settlers, and large-scale postwar immigration of Italians all contributed to a strong Italian sense of community. Nevertheless, Bosworth claims that internment left its scars on many:

the internments of the war years were quickly forgotten by all but the victims and their families. (They) lacked spirit and seemed reluctant to take an active part in public affairs, and retreated into the private world of work and family.26

On 8 August 1991 the government of Western Australia held a reconciliation dinner in Perth for Italian World War II internees. The then Premier of Western Australia, Carmen Lawrence, said:

As Premier of this State, I am here on behalf of the Government and the people of Western Australia, to acknowledge the emotional trauma and economic hardships suffered by the internees and their families … The decisions and policies made during those years were made in an atmosphere of confusion, suspicion and uncertainty. It is far easier to criticise past mistakes than to work to ensure that those mistakes will not be repeated in the future …27

This admission would have been very unlikely if the Italian community today were not so large, influential and respected. The then Premier of New South Wales Nick Greiner hosted a similar state luncheon in honour of former Italian internees and POWs in 1992.28

Most Japanese in Australia today are postwar settlers, and very few Japanese Australians who were interned remain. Those who do remain are widely dispersed. Unlike their North American counterparts, aggrieved Australian Japanese have no organisation to represent them. Nevertheless, some do feel they deserve compensation for what happened to them during the war. One Australian-born Japanese asked her local MP to investigate the possibility of making a claim, but she was told there was no case to be answered.29 Most former internees try to forget about their experiences and are reluctant to talk about that period of their lives. Jack Tolsee quoted his son: “Why don’t you take action for compensation and make a precedent?” Jack’s response was: “What could be achieved by that?”30 It is very unlikely that compensation will ever be paid.

The experience of war with Japan has inevitably coloured Australian perceptions of Japanese. In the postwar years this made it difficult for Japanese Australians to be positive about their ancestry. While Australian racial vilification laws prevent many of the excessive reactions found in the United States, during the Japanese rush on Australian real estate in the late 1980s and early 1990s, similar anti-Japanese sentiments were expressed in parts of Australia. The bursting of the Japanese “bubble economy” and subsequent sell-off of many Japanese holdings has alleviated the stridency of some complaints. However, anti-Japanese and, for that matter, anti-Asian, sentiments are often not far below the surface. In 1996 some Queensland councils proposed by-laws to restrict the amount of street advertising in languages other than English. While this may be presented as an attempt to reduce visual pollution, it is a small step from such action to open discrimination. Sadly, the remaining ex-internees, now past middle-age, are once again suffering the effects of negative stereotyping. Sadako Yamashita, a former internee from Thursday Island who lives in Cairns said: “There is ill-feeling against Japanese in town. I don’t like to be in the street in Cairns. Australians in town sometimes say something nasty to me on the street because I look Japanese.”31

The internment of Japanese in Australia was an insignificant part of the country’s involvement in World War II. It is simplistic to point out in hindsight that most internments were not justified. At the time there was probably little alternative. The Japanese in a White Australia besieged by Japan were guaranteed to fail any bureaucratic test of loyalty. Nevertheless, at an individual level, lives were irrevocably changed and, in many cases, destroyed. In contemporary multicultural Australia we must be aware of the possibility of the resurgence of old enmities. If no other positive outcome can be found from civilian internments during World War II, we can at least determine to create a society where it would be extremely difficult to repeat such events.

Notes

  1. A 373, 11505/48, 23 Aug. 1946. ↩
  2. Fischer, p. 77. ↩
  3. Internment Policy, 9 July 1941. ↩
  4. A 373, 1/505/48, Case No. 29, 19 Aug. 1946. ↩
  5. Evelyn Suzuki, Cairns, 14 Aug. 1992. ↩
  6. Ibid. ↩
  7. Ibid., Case No. 20. ↩
  8. Aliens Control in Australia, p. 1. ↩
  9. La Nauze, J. A., The Making of the Australian Constitution, Melbourne University Press, 1972, p. 231. ↩
  10. Ibid. ↩
  11. Bevege, p. 377. ↩
  12. Konno and Fujisaki, Vol II, p. 258. ↩
  13. Miki and Kobayashi, p. 121. ↩
  14. Statute Law Revision Act 1950, Section 5, Schedule 3. ↩
  15. Australian Citizenship Act 1948, Part III, p. 5. ↩
  16. Human Rights Commission, The Australian Citizenship Act 1948, Aug. 1982, Section II, p. 4. ↩
  17. Ibid., Appendix 2, sections 9 & 10. p. 21. ↩
  18. Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984, Clauses 3, 5 & 16, Sub-section 1. ↩
  19. Human Rights Commission, The Australian Citizenship Act 1948, Aug. 1982, Appendix 3, p. 22. ↩
  20. Ibid., p. 1. ↩
  21. Human Rights Commission, The Australian Citizenship Act 1948, Section 1, p. 3. ↩
  22. Ibid., Section II.9, p. 4. ↩
  23. Ibid., Appendix 2, p. 21. ↩
  24. Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and the Migration Act 1958, Apr. 1985, Section 2, p. 5. ↩
  25. Cresciani, p. 190. ↩
  26. Bosworth, p. 103. ↩
  27. Carmen Lawrence, “Reconciliation Dinner for Italian World War II Internees in W.A.”, delivered on 8 Aug. 1991, pp. 2–3. ↩
  28. Cresciani, Gianfranco, “The Bogey of the Italian Fifth Column: Internment and the Making of Italo-Australian” in Bossworth, Richard & Ugolini, Romano, eds., War Internment & Mass Migration: The Italo-Australian Experience 1940–1990, Roma, Gruppo Editoriale Internationale, 1992, p. 29. ↩
  29. Name withheld, Brisbane, 24 Aug. 1987. ↩
  30. Jack Truan, Palmers Island, N.S.W., 22 May 1993. ↩
  31. Sadako Ike née Yamashita, Cairns, 1 July 1992. ↩