Chapter 3: Australian Internment Policy

a policy was set in motion that was nothing less than a revival of the practice of transportation characteristic of the early colonial history of Australia as a penal settlement … Australia was the place, within the Empire, where prisoners were to be sent.¹

The idea that Australia was a natural choice for the imprisonment of aliens is supported by Saunders:

Australia exemplifies par excellence a society experienced in those procedures involved in the negative stereotyping of those deemed outsiders and their segregation and incarceration.²

Saunders further refers to Australia during World War II as having a “heritage as a convenient distant refuse dump”.³

World War I Internments

During World War I Australia interned 6,890 people of two groups – those from outside Australia and those of German and other enemy origin resident in Australia. About 4,500 had been residents of Australia before the war. Of the “Australian” Germans interned, about 700 were naturalised and 70 were native-born Australians.⁴ The other Germans were either sailors from enemy ships, or were held on behalf of the British government and came from other British dominions.⁵ Anti-German feeling created by the outbreak of war was intense. Michael McKernan argues that “the Australians needed to manufacture threats and crises to make the war real and immediate… The need to create a war situation, fraught with danger and uncertainty, affected the German residents of Australia most directly”.⁶ The Australian press encouraged hatred of the Germans by reporting real and alleged atrocities by German soldiers in Europe. The press presented a monstrous image of the Germans.⁷

Internment was provided for under the War Precautions Act 1914. In the years following the declaration of war with Germany on 4 August 1914, the Australian government arrested German nationals under this Act. In the Commonwealth census of 1911, 33,381 residents in Australia were German-born.⁸ McKernan estimates the number of people of German descent by calculating adherents to the Lutheran church throughout Australia. There were 74,508 Lutherans in Australia in 1911.⁹ Being a native-born or naturalised Australian did not always protect people of German descent from internment. Many were detained under Regulations 55 and 56 of the Act. The first stated:

Where the Minister has reason to believe that any naturalized person is disaffected or disloyal, he may … order him to be detained in military custody …

And the second:

Where the Minister has reason to believe that any natural-born British subject, one at least of whose parents was or is a subject of a State which is at war with the King, is disaffected or disloyal, he may … order him to be detained in military custody …¹⁰

In August 1915 the internment policy was widened under Regulation 56A:¹¹

Where in the opinion of the Minister for securing the public safety and the defence of the Commonwealth, it is expedient in view of the hostile origin or association of any person that he should be detained in military custody the Minister may … order him to be detained … during the continuance of the present war.¹²

The government was thus empowered to intern anyone it thought disloyal or dangerous. By March 1915 the camps had 1,930 internees, and by October this number had grown to 3,135. Only 58 were females.¹³

The German community was not only placed under threat of internment, but was also subject to various social, economic and legal restrictions throughout the war years. Violence against Germans was common and many felt driven to anglicise their names.¹⁴ Many workers of German background were dismissed and were unable to support their families.¹⁵ Fischer argues that the internment system was used as a tool of social control not only to exclude people because of their ethnic background, but also because some of them were perceived as being of undesirable socio-economic status.¹⁶

Many Australian-born internees felt deprived of what they believed to be their civil rights and despaired at their prolonged imprisonment. This was particularly true for those who had lived most, if not all, their lives as Australians. Max Tannenberg lived in Australia for 42 years and had been naturalised for 27. He was 65 years old when interned and constantly protested his innocence. Another even older internee was Edmund Resch, who had come to Australia at the age of 16 and was 71 when he was arrested. Resch not only had little or no connection with Germany but was even honorary consul for the Netherlands.¹⁷

In addition to deprivation of civil and legal rights, many internees and their families were separated. Although camps at Berrima and Bourke were reserved for families, the authorities refused to allow most wives and children to be interned. Of the 6,890 internees detained, only 67 were women, and 84 were children.¹⁸ In addition to the pain of separation, this often caused financial hardship for the families:

throwing a tremendous burden on the mothers to assume the role of breadwinner and to take over the responsible duties of running the farm, business or household affairs without any help and warning and with the added strain of emotional anxiety and insecurity which could only grow the longer the separation caused by the internment lasted.¹⁹

When the stress of living in an anti-German society was added to these already considerable problems, the difficulties for families left uninterned were often immense.

In 1916 the Australian-born internees formed an association at Liverpool camp, New South Wales, and protested at the injustice of their internment. In August 1918 members of the Naturalised British Subjects Association at Holsworthy camp in the same state were still writing to the Minister of Defence similarly protesting. Cabinet reviewed the question of Australian-born internees and decided that they should remain interned.²⁰ As the regulations allowed a very wide interpretation of who could be interned, it was extremely difficult for the internees to protest their innocence. According to McKernan, “the whole system of arrest and the length of imprisonment appears quite arbitrary.”²¹ In August 1918 internees at Holsworthy Camp appealed to the Minister of Defence:

The mental torture and resulting frailty of physical health is so pronounced in the case of those who are uncomfortable enough to have been interned for any lengthy period, that the time has arrived when an urgent appeal on the grounds of humanity must be made for consideration of our cases with some sense of fair play and justice. All we ask is a civil trial.

That such occurrences are possible in the twentieth century in such an advanced democracy as that of Australia seems hardly credible. But it is so, and there is being registered in Australian history a chapter which all real Australians will someday heartily wish could be expunged.²²

It was intended that all German overseas internees would be returned to Germany, and internee residents of Australia were to be deported with the proviso that they could appeal to a tribunal.²³ Uninterned enemy aliens were to be examined with a view to repatriation. Even naturalised persons of German origin could be requested to submit to a process of review after which their naturalisation could be cancelled, leaving them open to deportation. There was provision for repatriation of those who no longer wished to remain in Australia, and in Western Australia and Queensland circulars and advertisements encouraged voluntary repatriation.²⁴ Fischer clearly sees the period after the end of the war as a time for further social engineering.

Reduced to its core, the government’s thinking was characterised by an extremely parochial economic point of view. At stake was not the question of loyalty or security; the issues were parsimony and control, the interests of the state, very narrowly conceived in its imperial context, and the interests of an Australian bourgeoisie engaged in a trading relationship with England. The first priority was to avoid unnecessary government expenditure … Simultaneously, the expulsion of German businessmen cleared the way for the establishment of an Australian economy linked to the Empire … controlled solely by the sons of English immigrants who could go about their business without fear of competition by “non-Britishers”.²⁵

The total number of deportees was 6,150, of whom 5,414 had been interned. Others were either family members or both voluntary and compulsory repatriates. Appeals against deportation were made by 1,022 people, but 716 of these were refused permission to stay.²⁶

Although there were some instances of disloyalty on the part of Australians of German descent, according to McKernan “the German-Australians became the scapegoats for Australia’s fanatical, innocent embrace of war”.²⁷ For many years after the war the German community in Australia felt the effects of this. Harmstorf and Cigler write that, by the late 1920s, “gradually German descendants were re-elected into local government, parliament and public office”.²⁸ But when war against Germany was declared on 3 September 1939, the cycle began again.

World War II

The internment policy implemented by the Australian government during World War II was laid down in the War Book, which had been prepared by the Department of Defence. This Book, modelled on the United Kingdom War Book, “covered the precautionary measures to be taken when war was imminent and the measures to be taken immediately after the outbreak of war”.²⁹ It stated:

It is not intended to intern all civilian enemy aliens immediately on the outbreak of hostilities. Internment should be restricted to the narrowest limits consistent with public safety and public sentiment…

As a general rule, women of whatever nationality will not be interned. When the interests of public safety so demand, they will be kept in custody.³⁰

On 24 August 1939, ten days before war began, Cabinet gave tentative approval under the Defence Act to a number of Statutory Rules for the control of aliens.³¹ These were replaced by the National Security (Aliens Control) Act, which came into operation on 9 September 1939, retrospective to 25 August, and granted extremely wide powers to the Commonwealth for securing public safety.

Regulations under the Act required the registration of all aliens over the age of 16, restricted travel and movement, and notification of any change of residence. In addition, enemy aliens had to obtain written permission to leave the police district in which they resided. The most severe restriction was internment.³² Regulation 20 (amendment 59 of 1941) set out the detention provision for enemy aliens:

If the Minister or any person authorised by the Minister to act under this regulation is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of the public safety, the defence of the Commonwealth or the efficient prosecution of the present war to detain any enemy alien, he may, by warrant under his hand, order the enemy alien to be detained in such place, under such conditions and for such period as the Minister or person so authorized determines.³³

The British government had formulated a policy of internment just before the war. It stated that no general internment of enemy aliens was contemplated, but that some measure of general internment might be inevitable at an early date, particularly in regard to Germans, and in response to public opinion.³⁴ The Australian government also saw “no justification for a policy of general internment”.³⁵ On 8 September 1939, the Prime Minister, R.G. Menzies, stated that the only aliens liable to internment were those engaging in subversive activities.³⁶ He stressed that “It is as important to preserve justice in our own land as it is to fight for it internationally”.³⁷ To implement this policy, commandants of Military Districts were instructed that “no person should be interned unless his being at large constituted a danger to public safety or the defence of the Commonwealth”.³⁸ As a result, the general policy contained in the War Book was amplified as follows:

Internment is only to be resorted to when it is considered that other forms of control would not be adequate.

There must be a reasonable case against an individual enemy alien before he is interned. Apart from evidence of activities, membership of an organization such as the N.S.D.A.P. [Nazi Party] or any of its offshoots, or Allied organizations, or Fascio or its offshoots, is to be considered as a prima facie ground for internment. In any borderline cases the benefit of the doubt is to be given to national interests rather than the individual.

With respect to persons generally classified as refugees it is to be borne in mind that it is the practice of the Germans (for example) to use relatives and property in Germany as a means of exerting pressure to serve Nazi ends. When considering the case of an enemy alien “refugee” that aspect should be taken into consideration. It is specially desirable that no enemy alien admitted to the country as a refugee, or generally so regarded, should be interned unless he has been given an opportunity of stating his case. The onus is on him to show that he is not likely to be influenced by the possible consequences to his relatives in enemy territory and that he has thrown in his lot with the Commonwealth to such an extent that there is no prospect of his yielding to pressure by the enemy.³⁹

The authorities were conscious of the problems caused by internment during World War I. According to Bevege, “Concern to keep cost to a minimum was highlighted by the World War I experience.”⁴⁰ Internment during the 1914-1918 war cost Australia £1.5 million. There were also considerations of human rights. The authorities needed to take into account public morale, freedom of speech and the economic contributions of those who might be interned. There were other considerations such as the use of valuable manpower to guard internees. Nevertheless, national security had to be considered.⁴¹ In Bevege’s words, “it was a question of balance”.⁴² In the early days of the war, while there was no external threat to public safety, Bevege claims internments were “few and carefully considered”.⁴³ By late November, 343 Germans and Austrians had been interned, although 66 were soon released. Of the remainder, 170 were declared Nazis.⁴⁴

Italy entered the war on 10 June 1940. At that time the Italian community in Australia was 27,500 – the largest migrant group after those from the British Isles. Of these, 14,000 were naturalised⁴⁵ and 12,348 were Italian nationals.⁴⁶ The Australian government had anticipated the internment of Italians and had prepared detention orders for all Italian males under categories according to their suspected capacity for being a security risk. Category A included people suspected of espionage and members of the Italian armed forces, hostile political organisations and criminal groups. Category B comprised people with knowledge of opportunities for sabotage or espionage. Category C included leaders and people of influence in the Italian community and Category D all Italian males of military age. All others were grouped as Category O.⁴⁷ The Australian Army had prepared detention orders for all Italians who were classified under A, B and C, while detention of people grouped under D was considered on the merits of each particular case.⁴⁸

Although the internment of Italians was supposedly effected under the same policy as that adopted for Germans, significant Allied reversals in June in Europe led to more vigorous measures. Indiscriminate internment occurred in Western Australia.⁴⁹ Saunders claims that:

Although Commonwealth policy laid down in the War Book required restricted and selective internal internment such as members of the NSDPA and direct security risks, actual procedures reflected the Allies’ defeats on the battle field rather than a fair assessment of any individual’s case.⁵⁰

The War Cabinet amplified the policy of internment, which had previously been restricted “to the narrowest limits”, to give it more general application. In July 1940 it was officially decided, on the basis of the United Kingdom’s policy on the internment of Italians, to intern all males of Italian descent. This was to be whether or not they were British subjects by birth or naturalisation, unless they were over 70 years or had resided in Australia for more than 20 years.⁵¹ In practice, relatively few were included. By 10 August 1940, 1,901 Italians had been interned, 1,044 of them in Western Australia. Hasluck notes that the palpable injustice of indiscriminate internment aroused much public sympathy.⁵² Following public protests and appeals by migrants, the application of the policy was liberalised, and at the end of November 1940 internees were given the opportunity to appeal to an Aliens Tribunal which could recommend release.⁵³ That month 650 Germans and 1,726 Italians were in internment. Among them were 76 naturalised British subjects of German origin and 182 naturalised British subjects of Italian origin.⁵⁴

Japan’s Entry into the War

Japan’s attacks on Malaya, Singapore, the Philippines and Pearl Harbor on 8 December 1941 Australian time was “the beginning of a new war”.⁵⁵ In Hasluck’s words, “Australia was shocked by the vigour and daring of the opening blows. Yet there was no dismay … The events about which there had been recurrent discussion in Australia for more than half a century had at last come. Japan was attacking”.⁵⁶ The Australian government received the news of the Pearl Harbor attack within an hour and a quarter of the event.⁵⁷ By midday Japan had struck at targets ranging from Malaya and Singapore to the Philippines, Guam, Hong Kong, Wake, Midway and Ocean Island.⁵⁸

In a national broadcast, Prime Minister Curtin, who had taken office a couple of months previously, told the nation that Australia was at war with Japan.⁵⁹ He said:

This is our darkest hour for the nation itself is imperilled … Men and women of Australia, the call is to you for your courage, your physical and mental ability, your inflexible determination that we as a free people shall survive. My appeal to you is in the name of Australia, for Australia is the stake in this contest.⁶⁰

The very nature of the attack confirmed Australia’s fear of the “yellow peril” and inflamed its anti-Japanese attitudes. Almost all the “Japanese” in Australia and its territories were rounded up within 24 hours of Pearl Harbor.

The Australian government had anticipated the internment of “Japanese” in the event of hostilities with Japan. Up to June 1940, Australia had hoped that war with Japan might be averted.⁶¹ These hopes faded as Allied reversals in Europe coincided with the various declarations by Japan of a “new order” and a “co-prosperity sphere” in East Asia. Australia’s hopes were finally shattered on 29 June 1940 when Japanese Foreign Minister Arita announced Japan’s intention to expand to the south. In a broadcast he stated:

Japan, while constructing a new order in East Asia, is paying serious attention to the development of the war and its repercussions in various quarters, including the South Seas. I desire to declare that the destiny of these regions and any development in them, or any disposal of them, is a matter of grave concern to Japan in view of her mission and responsibility as a stabilising force in East Asia.⁶²

In the same month, the Australian authorities took steps to complete dossiers of all Japanese nationals with a view to their immediate internment upon the outbreak of war with Japan. These dossiers were prepared with information obtained from alien registration applications or from district police officers. Each military district speedily carried out the registration of all Japanese residents over 16 years of age. By July 1941, lists of “Japanese” registered in Australia and its territories were largely completed.⁶³

There were always far fewer Japanese in Australia than Germans and Italians. On 28 July 1941, Military Intelligence indicated that 1,139 Japanese were living in the Commonwealth and 36 in its overseas territories.⁶⁴

Members of Military Intelligence and the security service had been watching the activities of all Japanese for years and paid special attention to possible agents. The activities of Nihonjin-kai were known to be patriotic and attracted the interest of the Australian authorities. They were believed to be centres of a spy ring.⁶⁵ The activities of the Japanese consulates and legations were also closely observed. Their close contact with the large Japanese corporations, such as Mitsui and Mitsubishi, as well as the Nihonjin-kai, seems to have suggested coordinated spy activities to the Australian authorities.⁶⁶ On 1 July 1942, members of the Security Service in Sydney wrote:

Japanese nationals living abroad are much more strictly controlled by their Consular officials than are nationals of other countries. Every Japanese living abroad is under a permanent obligation to his Consul to report items of intelligence and information on which Japanese policy may benefit. This is regarded as a duty incumbent upon them all.⁶⁷

Military Districts had compiled lists of all Japanese in Australia classified as dangerous. They included Japanese seamen on Thursday Island and those who were known to have good knowledge of the waters around Torres Strait. Northern Command was also aware that many of the seamen were “100 per cent naval trained”.⁶⁸ In August 1940 the Commandant of the Seventh Military District at Darwin reported that “many of the lugger crew boys who have visited Darwin this season have come ashore wearing Japanese Army F.S. Caps”.⁶⁹

The largest Nihonjin-kai was at Thursday Island. In March 1939 it had 479 members.⁷⁰ Documents in its office were confiscated upon the outbreak of war. Among these was a membership list. It showed that a majority of the Japanese seamen on Thursday Island were either “replenished soldiers” or reservists.⁷¹ The confiscated material also contained information about some of the patriotic activities. The Nihonjin-kai conducted various fund-raising activities for Japan, sending £1,688 as a national defence contribution during the years 1937–1940, and £120 for the celebration of the 2,600th anniversary of the founding of the Japanese Empire.⁷² These contributions were sent to the Foreign Ministry of Japan via the Japanese Consulate-General in Sydney. Prince Fumimaro Konoe, President of the Tokyo Congress of Overseas Japanese Compatriots for the Celebration of the Anniversary, acknowledged the donations on 20 November 1940:

1,500 overseas compatriots … participating in our glorious celebration of the 2,600th Anniversary … our expected aim has been achieved … I would like to express my warmest thanks to you.⁷³

The 2,600th Anniversary was celebrated worldwide and other Nihonjin-kai in various countries also made contributions. It is reasonable to assume that other Nihonjin-kai in Australia participated in this fund-raising, although Toshio Fukuda, the former secretary of the Nihonjin-kai in Broome, said that “he had no recollection of such contributions made by the Broome Japanese”.⁷⁴

The indentured labourers of the Queensland sugar cane industry were more scattered than the pearlers and their activities seem to have been less organised. The Nihonjin-kai in Innisfail had 14 members in 1939.⁷⁵ The Nihonjin-kai in Brisbane had 30 members, most of whom were business representatives, including Professor Ryuunosuke Seita, chairman of Japanese Studies at the University of Queensland from 1938. He was considered “the leading Japanese” in the state.⁷⁶ Various reports written about him before the war clearly indicate that the Australian authorities suspected him. The state’s Police Investigation Branch closely observed his movements and lectures at the university.⁷⁷ Correspondence confiscated from his residence upon the outbreak of war revealed some of his activities. It was found that he had been in close contact with pro-Japanese Australians. A large quantity of pro-Japanese pamphlets written by the leaders of the Australia First Movement, including P.R. Stephenson and Thomas and Adela Pankhurst Walsh, were also found in his possession.⁷⁸ Apparently there was no proof that Seita had personal contact with these activists. In June 1942, the Director of Security for Queensland reported:

It can be concluded … that Seita was held in high esteem by the Japanese Government and that he was sent here as a Government agent. His particular function appears to have been the creation of a friendly feeling towards Japan and the collecting of information dealing with that aspect.⁷⁹

In the view of the Australian authorities, “Sydney was the principal centre for Japanese espionage and Melbourne was also a point for quite considerable activity of that kind”.⁸⁰ The Nihonjin-kai in Sydney had 185 members, most of them short-term residents employed by Japanese companies. The rest were long-term residents who came to Australia before Federation.⁸¹

The internment of people of German origin was selective and, even though indiscriminate internment of Italians occurred in some areas, the military authorities never intended to intern all of them. The internment of Japanese, however, did not follow this pattern. They were all to be interned because their membership of a particular ethnic group placed them all under suspicion of being a security risk.

On 9 May 1941 the War Cabinet adopted the internment policy to be implemented in the event of war with Japan.⁸² The relevant sections of the policy provided for:

1. Internment of all Japanese males over 16 years, within Australia and its territories, except those with diplomatic or consular privileges.
2. Internment of all Japanese women until they could be transferred out of the country.
3. The negotiation with Japan of an exchange of internees other than those required to be held for security reasons.
4. Acceptance of Japanese internees from New Caledonia if so required by the Free French Movement, as well as those from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, British Solomon Islands Protectorate and New Hebrides.
5. Provision of separate accommodation for internees who are between the ages of 16 and 19 years, for the aged, i.e., over 65 years, and for women, other than those whose male relatives have been interned.⁸³

The policy against the Japanese was made because:

1. No association equivalent to the N.S.D.A.P. or Fascio, membership of which is an indication of the sentiments of the individual towards the country of his origin, are known to exist among the Japanese in this country.
2. Japanese nationals are not absorbed in this country as are many Germans and Italians.
3. Their well-known fanaticism and devotion to their country would probably lead to attempts at sabotage on the part of any Japanese here in a position to do this.
4. Male Japanese if left at large, would probably be the object of demonstrations which it is very desirable to avoid.⁸⁴

The Australian government had previously decided not to intern enemy aliens over 70 years old or those who had resided in Australia for more than 20 years.⁸⁵ The Japanese did not receive this consideration. The decision was to “collar the lot” as the authorities thought that “Japanese males of any age, even sixty-five to seventy and over, may endeavour to engage in sabotage.”⁸⁶ In the few months before the outbreak of war with Japan, this section of the policy was questioned and brought to the attention of the Cabinet by Western Command. It queried whether Japanese males who were infirm or senile needed to be interned. It recommended that, in the circumstances, some form of restriction and surveillance would be sufficient.⁸⁷ The Cabinet seems not to have agreed. More than 70 per cent of Japanese males, excluding the pearlers, were elderly. More than half were well over 65 in 1941. Three men were in nursing homes in Queensland. The average period of residence was more than 40 years.⁸⁸ All were to be interned.

Under the earlier internment policy, no women were to be interned, except where the interests of public safety so demanded. The Army thought that “women are not generally so involved in organizing activities inimical to the Empire as men of enemy nationality”.⁸⁹ However, the internment of all Japanese women was anticipated.⁹⁰ According to an intelligence report of 10 April 1942, on 28 March 1942, three German, four Italian and seventy-eight local Japanese women were being held in internment.⁹¹ The number seems to include some of the older girls. An examination of records of release during the war, postwar repatriation files and accounts of former internees indicate that 66 Japanese women of mature age were interned during the war.⁹² Approximately 90 per cent were married, 11 of them being widows. The origin of all Japanese women was as follows:

This suggests that no women of Anglo-Celtic origin were interned. Some Australian-born women of “white European race” were married to Japanese nationals in the Sydney and Melbourne areas. According to an Eastern Command report on 6 June 1941, seventeen women and one girl were registered as Japanese in the Sydney area and, of those, 10 were of British birth and had become Japanese by marriage.⁹³ Southern Command reported that seven women were registered as Japanese in the Melbourne area, five of them of British birth.⁹⁴ In August 1941 Eastern Command questioned “whether these women who were British subjects before marriage were to be summarily interned, or whether in the circumstances some form of restriction or surveillance would be deemed sufficient”.⁹⁵ Section 18 of the Nationality Act of 1920–30 stated that “the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien”. In accordance with this Act, such women were regarded as enemy aliens and subject to internment.

However, Section 18 of the 1936 Nationality Act allowed wives of aliens to apply for or regain British nationality, which they lost by marrying aliens. They would then be entitled to “all political and other rights, powers and privileges and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject”. The Minister for the Army decided that such women would only be interned where specific evidence, or reasonable grounds, existed.⁹⁶

In Geelong, Victoria, four laundry shops were run by four Japanese – Hasegawa, Furuya, Nagai and Itoh – all of whom married white women. Setsutaroo Hasegawa of Hokkaido came to Australia in 1897 at the age of 26,⁹⁷ worked as a houseboy in Melbourne and learnt English. He set up a laundry business on Toorak Road in Melbourne before he established his laundry business in Geelong. He married a European woman and had three sons.⁹⁸ According to Ida Hasegawa, his daughter-in-law, the other three had similar backgrounds in Australia. Three wives kept the businesses running while their husbands were interned. The exception was Hasegawa, a divorcee, whose shop was closed while he was in camp.⁹⁹ In New South Wales, 13 men were listed as having either white wives or white de facto wives in 1946.¹⁰⁰ Hashi Oyama from Kagoshima was one. He arrived in Townsville in 1903 at the age of 17 and found employment as a sugar plantation worker, but left for Brisbane where he worked as a domestic servant and learnt English. He established his laundry business in Sydney in 1912 and in 1941 was a member of the Japanese Laundry Association there.¹⁰¹ In 1944 he wrote:

In the year 1912 … I took Miss Margaret McKee to wife. The new laundry had been named as “Japanese Laundry” and we had been struggling hard so as to bring our business into a success. In the year 1913 a daughter was born to us … Peaceful family of mine had been interrupted by this War and I had to leave my beloved family behind to look after my business … they look after my business at present …¹⁰²

Violet Umino, born in Australia, was married to Denzo Umino, a Japanese laundry man and the head of Dooshikai, or the association of Japanese laundry proprietors in Sydney. She regained her British nationality before the outbreak of the war and escaped internment by going to live in West Wyalong, 200 miles from the coast, while her husband and Australian-born son were interned. According to Douglas Umino, their son, the laundry business was run by Mrs Umino’s sister while Mrs Umino was living in West Wyalong. She was able to return to Sydney in November 1942, but was placed under a restriction order as set out in the National Security Regulations until the war ended.¹⁰³ In Bevege’s words, “the facts that she and her son were registered in Japan, and she had her name on a list of donors to the Japanese Forces Comforts Fund, told against her.”¹⁰⁴

Rose Inagaki, who was born in Australia and in 1907 married Moshi Inagaki, a Japanese lecturer at the University of Melbourne, was “furious when the police demanded her fingerprints and photograph for alien registration in early 1940”.¹⁰⁵ She wrote:

I am an Australian woman of British parentage … married to my husband for more than thirty-two years. We have both been loyal citizens of the Empire and my husband has most faithfully served this State for all those years as a teacher, twenty years at the University… I have naturally been, perhaps violently, British. I object strongly to my treatment at the hands of a Policeman. I spoke my objections, but my fingerprints were somewhat forcibly taken. I was also told that they would be used against me. I wish to know how and why this is to be done. Is it a criminal offence to marry a foreigner?¹⁰⁶

She applied to regain her British nationality and only her husband was interned the following year. She died in August 1943 while her husband was still interned.¹⁰⁷

In November 1941, twenty-five women were registered as Japanese in Western Australia. Of these, three were Australian-born.¹⁰⁸ Margaret Shiosaki was one, and one of five Aboriginal wives interned in Australia. She was married to Shizuo Shiosaki, a Nisei Japanese born in Broome to a Japanese father and an Aboriginal mother. The Shiosaki family had a laundry business in Broome. Their eldest daughter, Peggy, was 14 years old when she was interned with her parents and six brothers and sisters in Broome. She recalled:

Dad was taken first. He was in the Broome gaol. Some days later police came to get us. Dad and other Japanese were going to be sent somewhere in the south. Mum was very upset and my little brothers were crying … Mum didn’t want to be separated from Dad. She chose to go (with him).

Because no one in the family was left to run the laundry, they lost everything.¹⁰⁹

Of 29 Japanese families arrested in Australia, 5 had Aboriginal Japanese backgrounds. Three of them were from Broome. Because Aborigines were not regarded as British subjects, Aboriginal wives of Japanese did not have the entitlements which wives of “white European race” enjoyed. Evidence suggests that Aboriginal wives could choose to remain home, but all five decided to go with their husbands.

Lora Yamaguchi, the wife of Rinzoo Yamaguchi, the baker in Burketown, chose to stay with her son Arthur while her husband was interned. She was born in Burketown to a Chinese father and a full-blood Aboriginal mother in 1903. In 1993 Lora recalled:

I bin miss him. Cryin’, cryin’ all night. Dogs bin miss him too because he had to feed them and play with them. Them dogs was howlin’ and I was howlin’ too, meanin’ I started the dogs. Everybody said, “You start your dogs howlin’ like that, it’s no good. Everybody don’t like it.” I said, “OK”.¹¹⁰

Aboriginal women and children from Burketown were all evacuated to an area some miles inland from the town in early 1942. They lived there in tents. She said: “Truck took us back. Everything what we had. Back again our home. We all had a home there together.”¹¹¹ In 1992 Arthur wrote: “We did not lose anything through confiscation or likewise but then we did not have anything of value.”¹¹²

In the early days of the war, the Army did not allow families of German internees to accompany their men as it thought the cost of having them in internment “would be very great in the provision of extra accommodation, food, clothing and guards”.¹¹³ However, there were problems of loneliness and family separation. Bevege wrote that “wives began to feel that camp life, despite its prison stigma, was a desirable alternative”.¹¹⁴ On 17 August 1942, the Department of the Army advised the Director General of Security on the internment of wives and children. It expressed the opinion that children under 16 should be permitted to accompany parents into internment only if both parents were interned and if both agreed. It was also felt that wives should not be permitted voluntarily to accompany interned husbands and that children should not live in an internment camp if one parent was at liberty. This was largely based on economic considerations.¹¹⁵

The authorities applied Regulation 13 of the National Security (Aliens Control) Act 1939 to take Australian-born Japanese into military custody.¹¹⁶ Regulation 13 was a “catch-all” providing for arrest without warrant of any person suspected of committing an offence against the Act, or of being about to commit such an offence. It allowed any person, not only an approved officer, to perform such an arrest. The Act protected any person arresting someone under it from prosecution for false arrest. The 1940 Act to amend the National Security Act 1939 removed the provision that any person might perform arrests under the Act, but provided for the placing of the services and property of anyone at the disposal of the government.¹¹⁷

Approximately 100 Australian-born Japanese were interned during hostilities. They ranged in age from infants to those in their fifties. Approximately half were children under 16 and some were Sansei.¹¹⁸ The Tanaka family was summarily interned. The Acting Director-General of Security, R. Browne, described them after the war:

This is a nondescript family. The husband is Australian-born of Japanese blood and the wife Australian-born of Filipino blood. They have all lived in Thursday Island since birth. They have three children. The family speak only English and … state that they do not get on with the other Japanese in the camp because they are regarded as Australians.¹¹⁹

They were British subjects by law. Section 6 of the Commonwealth Nationality Act 1920–30 stated that “any person born within his Majesty’s dominions and allegiance” is deemed to be a natural-born British subject.¹²⁰ However, being a “natural-born British subject” did not always guarantee the rights to which British subjects were entitled. A natural-born British subject who was the wife or child of an alien, could be classified as an alien under the Aliens Registration Act of 1920¹²¹ and the Nationality Act of 1920.¹²² Section 12 of the same act provided for certificates of naturalisation to be revoked under a variety of circumstances. These included dealing with an enemy state, being convicted of crimes of certain gravity, and not being “of good character”. A final blanket proviso was so open to interpretation that it would suffice to revoke naturalisation on almost any grounds. It stated that certification can be revoked if “the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good”.¹²³

Commonwealth nationality laws also contained various provisions to revoke the British status of wives and children of aliens. Naturalised wives and children could have their status rescinded, reverting automatically to the status they had before naturalisation.¹²⁴ A natural-born British subject who fell within one of the categories under “Disability” in the same Act could have naturalisation denied. “Disability” was defined under Section 5 of the Act as “the status of being a married woman, or a minor, lunatic or idiot”. The “citizenship” granted was, in Campbell and Whitmore’s words, “of a very inferior nature”.¹²⁵

Under the “collar the lot” policy, some who were half-Japanese through their mothers were also interned. The Ahmat family in Cossack, Western Australia, was in this category. The father was Thai and the mother was Japanese. They had three sons and one daughter. Apart from the father, and the youngest son who had enlisted, all were arrested.¹²⁶ Jimmy Chi was interned. He was a British subject born in Broome to a Chinese father, a former Ballarat gold prospector who became one of Broome’s first pearlers, and a Japanese mother. In January 1946 an intelligence report stated:

Chi, J.J., … dwelt on the injustice of his internment which, he declared, was brought about by the jealousy of citizens of the town where he lived in Western Australia. He went on to say that his father was Chinese and that the fact that his mother was Japanese was no reason why he should have been interned as he knew many males of Japanese blood who had not been arrested.¹²⁷

Jack Tolsee was born to a white mother and a Sikh father in Perth. He was six when his mother became too ill to care for him; he was taken in by an aunt on his mother’s side. She was married to a Japanese tomato farmer named Yamamoto who had a property in Geraldton, Western Australia. When Yamamoto was arrested on 8 December 1941, Jack was not taken but was interned in the following month. He had not been adopted by Yamamoto and was not of Japanese descent. The only reason for his arrest, in his words, was that he was living with a Japanese family.¹²⁸ After the war Browne described him:

It seems incredible that this young lad, then only 15 years of age, and who is not particularly Japanese in appearance and who was quietly living with his aunt, an aboriginal woman, should have been interned and kept in internment for almost five years. If he has any nationality, I imagine that it is Australian derived by birth from his aboriginal mother …¹²⁹

Another case which Browne found difficult to explain was that of Toshio Nagano (Martin Wellington). He commented:

This man is interned under the name of Toshio Nagano but it is quite problematical whether he has any Japanese blood in him at all and the name was merely given to him by Japanese whilst in association with them in the pearling industry. He has no knowledge of his parents at all but from his appearance he would seem to have had at least one aboriginal parent, probably his mother. He is very well spoken, highly intelligent … He spent his early years in the north and came to Brisbane when he was about 21 … He became known to an elderly Japanese widow (interned) … and has been accepted by her as a foster son …¹³⁰

The internment of the Japanese was not as complete as the policy makers allowed for. In Victoria, Ichiko Takasuka, a 65-year-old widow of Bendigo, was exempted from internment. The only member of the family interned was her older son, Sho. Her younger son, Mario, was enlisted in the AIF and her daughter was not interned.¹³¹ Because of the good reputation of the family, Southern Command advised the Minister for the Army to exclude the widow from internment lists in the event of hostilities.¹³² The Minister replied that “it was beyond the power of a single minister to overrule the collective decision of his colleagues but drew attention to the fact that the minute specified no date before which implementation must be completed.”¹³³ Southern Command took the hint and never got to interning her.

In Queensland, all but seven Japanese whose names appeared in the warrants were arrested. Five of the seven were deceased, one was in hospital, and the other was Kazuko Fukushima, an Australian-born girl who was not arrested by direction of Northern Command.¹³⁴ She was a daughter of Mr and Mrs Fukushima and was allowed to live in a boarding school in Cairns during the war while her parents were interned.¹³⁵

Arthur Yamaguchi, the son of the Japanese baker in Burketown, was 20 when the war broke out. He was not interned. He wrote in 1992:

there never were any questions asked me or any indication that I might be taken in at any time to my knowledge … It never even occurred to me that I might or could have been interned too … I guess that question could have been discussed by the authorities concerned and my employers. I worked on cattle stations in those years as a stockman.¹³⁶

He was later recruited into the North Australia Observer Unit (known as the Nackeroos or Curtin’s Cowboys) established in May 1942.¹³⁷ In 1993 he said:

There was no ill-feeling, or anything like that. Now and again they’d say “Here comes the Jap!” … They checked whether I really wanted to be there and explained the situation. Some Aussie might not trust you and you might get shot from behind or you could be shot in front. I said I’d just have to take that chance. Without being brave or anything like that. That was the fact. I was prepared to do whatever I could for Australia because that’s all the country I know.¹³⁸

According to a diary kept by Mr Miki Tsutsumi from Broome, two Japanese men in Western Australia were not interned. One was arrested in Pinjarra on 8 December 1941, but was released soon after because he was medically unfit to travel. The other was a 75- year-old man in Geraldton, whose internment was anticipated, but the authorities could not locate him.¹³⁹ There is no record showing how many were not interned. In 1947, 335 people in Australia were registered as Japanese.¹⁴⁰ This included 69 who had been released during the war and 143 who were allowed to remain in Australia after the war. The remaining 123 comprises either sons who were fighting for Australia or those not interned for various reasons, including the above-mentioned cases.

Under Australian Military Regulations & Orders No. 177, those who were not substantially of European origin were excluded from service in the armed forces.¹ Inevitably this was open to local and individual interpretation by authorities. For example, Sissons quotes the case of Mario Takasuka who had been rejected twice under the provisions of the above regulations. Although wholly of Japanese descent, he was finally accepted after travelling to Melbourne where “he was unknown and the Recruiting Officer was unfamiliar with the regulations”.¹⁴² Other Nisei of mixed descent were also accepted in the Australian armed forces. According to a list prepared by the Department of Immigration on 16 October 1946, during 1939 to 1945 about 3,000 aliens served in the Australian armed forces. Of these, 630 were ex-internees, including 390 Germans and five Italians. The records, however, do not list the Nisei as Japanese.¹⁴³ The authorities officially treated them as “Australian” while other Nisei were interned as “Japanese”. The fact that interned Issei had sons in the military did not always guarantee that the authorities would consider early release for them. Some of those who had enlisted sons remained interned for the duration of the war.

Except for some who were Australian-born, most “Japanese” were arrested in Australia on 8 December 1941 in an attempt to implement total internment as policy intended. The arrests were facilitated by the fact that the Japanese community was small, identifiable and largely concentrated in the north-east. Army Headquarters sent a telegram to Northern Command on 31 December 1941 which clearly indicated the Army’s brief. It read: “All men and women who are Japanese by race should be interned”.¹⁴⁴ Northern Command was given the power to intern suspected aliens without higher authority, and the police were allowed to recommend internment based upon simple suspicion of disloyalty. During the first half of 1942 the number of aliens interned doubled and 90 per cent of the new internees, mostly of Italian origin, were from Queensland.¹⁴⁵ Saunders argues that: “Those of non-British origin were detained according to their geographic location rather than their ideology”.¹⁴⁶ During this period some Australian-born who had not been taken into custody at the commencement of hostilities with Japan were interned. During hostilities, 97 per cent of the registered aliens of Japanese descent were imprisoned, while 31 per cent of Italian and 32 of German descent were interned.¹⁴⁷

• Previous
• Home
• Next

Notes

1. Fischer, G., Enemy Aliens: Internment and the Homefront Experience in Australia 1914–1920, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, 1989, p. 151. ↩
2. Saunders, Inspired by Patriotic Hysteria, p. 4. ↩
3. Ibid., p. 35. ↩
4. Fischer, G., p. 77. ↩
5. Fischer, p. 77. ↩
6. McKernan, M., The Australian People and the Great War, Nelson, Melbourne, 1980, p. 150. ↩
7. Ibid., p.154. ↩
8. Ibid., p.150. ↩
9. Ibid., p.151. ↩
10. Commonwealth of Australia, War Precautions Regulations, Statutory Rules 1914, No. 7. ↩
11. Commonwealth of Australia, War Precautions Regulations, Statutory Rules 1915, No. 135. ↩
12. Ibid. ↩
13. McKernan, p.174. ↩
14. Harmstorf, Ian and Cigler, Michael, The Germans in Australia, AE Press, Melbourne, 1985, pp. 127–128. ↩
15. McKernan, p. 162. ↩
16. Fischer, pp. 85–86. ↩
17. McKernan in Fischer, p. 62. ↩
18. Bevege, M., Internment in Australia During World War II, Ph.D. thesis, La Trobe University, 1986, p. 53. ↩
19. Fischer, p. 267. ↩
20. Harmstorf and Cigler, pp. 132–133. ↩
21. McKernan, p. 174. ↩
22. Harmstorf and Cigler, p. 133. ↩
23. Fischer, p. 287. ↩
24. Ibid., pp. 288–289. ↩
25. Ibid., p. 293. ↩
26. Ibid., p. 302. ↩
27. McKernan, p. 177. ↩
28. Harmstorf and Cigler, p. 133. ↩
29. Hasluck, Paul, The Government and the People 1939–1941, vol. 1, Canberra, 1952, p. 122. ↩
30. MP 729/6, 65/401/135 (Hereafter referred to as Internment Policy), 17 Feb., 1941. ↩
31. Hasluck, p. 149. ↩
32. Ibid., p. 593. ↩
33. Commonwealth of Australia, National Security (Aliens Control) Regulations, 1939, No. 88. ↩
34. BP 242/1, Q 30579, United Kingdom Policy. ↩
35. Ibid. ↩
36. Ibid. ↩
37. Bevege, p. 51. ↩
38. AWM 54, 780/1/6. Vol 1, Part 1, p.2. ↩
39. Internment Policy, 17 Feb. 1941. ↩
40. Bevege, p. 52. ↩
41. Ibid., pp. 52–55. ↩
42. Ibid., p. 53. ↩
43. Ibid., p. 54. ↩
44. Saunders, K., Inspired by Patriotic Hysteria: Internment Policy towards Enemy Aliens and Prisoners of War in Australia during the Second World War, p. 15. ↩
45. Bevege, p. 104. ↩
46. Bosi, P., Blood, Sweat & Guts, Pino Bosi, Sydney, 1970, p. 63. ↩
47. Ibid. ↩
48. Cresciani, G., Fascism, Anti-Fascism and Italians in Australia, Canberra, ANU Press, 1980, p.172. ↩
49. Ibid., pp. 172–174. ↩
50. Saunders, p. 2. ↩
51. BP 242/1, Q 30579, 18 Jul. 1940. ↩
52. Cresciani, p. 174; Hasluck, p. 594. ↩
53. Hasluck, p. 594. ↩
54. Ibid., p. 594. ↩
55. McKinlay, Brian, Australia 1942: End of Innocence, Collins, Sydney, 1985, p. 38. ↩
56. Hasluck, p. 557. ↩
57. McKernan, Michael, All in: Australia During the Second World War, Nelson, Melbourne, 1983, p. 97. ↩
58. Ibid., p. 96. ↩
59. McKinlay, p. 96. ↩
60. McKernan, p. 97. ↩
61. Hasluck, p. 524. ↩
62. Ibid. ↩
63. Internment Policy, 28 Jul. 1941. ↩
64. Ibid. ↩
65. Ibid., 27 Aug. 1940. ↩
66. A 373, 5290, Aide Memoir. ↩
67. C 123, Criminal Investigation Files, 1 Jul. 1942. ↩
68. Ibid. ↩
69. Internment Policy, Aug. 1940. ↩
70. Ibid., 27 Aug. 1940. ↩
71. Thursday Island Material, List 2, Section 38. ↩
72. Ibid., Section 13. ↩
73. Ibid. ↩
74. Toshio Fukuda, Tokyo, 26 May 1988. ↩
75. Thursday Island Material, List 2, Section 38. ↩
76. BP 242/1, Q 24301(hereafter referred to as Seita Material), Feb. 1939. ↩
77. Ibid., 22 Aug. 1940. ↩
78. Ibid., 29 Jun. 1942. ↩
79. Ibid. ↩
80. Aide Memoir. ↩
81. Thursday Island Material, List 2, Section 38. ↩
82. Internment Policy, 9 May 1941. ↩
83. Ibid. ↩
84. Internment Policy, 9 Jul. 1941. ↩
85. BP 242/1, Q 30579, 18 Jul. 1940. ↩
86. Internment Policy, 27 Jul. 1940. ↩
87. Ibid., 14 Oct. 1941. ↩
88. These figures have been calculated from internees’ lists. A 437, 46/6/72. ↩
89. A 2673, Vol. 3. War Cabinet Minutes, No. 464, 29 Aug. 1940. ↩
90. Internment Policy, 9 May 1941. ↩
91. CA 753, BP 242/1, Q 30579, Extracts from G.H.Q. Intelligence Summary No. 172, 10 Apr. 1942. ↩
92. A 437, 46/6/72, 4 Jan. 1947; AP 308/1, No. 12, 1941B43 and No. 18, 1944. ↩
93. MP 729/6, 65/401/135, 6 Jun. 1941. ↩
94. Ibid., 12 Aug. 1941. ↩
95. Internment Policy, 4 Aug. 1941. ↩
96. Ibid., 13 Aug. 1941. ↩
97. MP 529/3, CA 5, 10 Feb. 1942. ↩
98. Ida Hasegawa, Geelong, 16 Aug. 1987. ↩
99. Ibid. ↩
100. A 437, 46/6/72, No date. ↩
101. D 1901, O 3261, 14 Aug. 1944. ↩
102. Ibid. ↩
103. Douglas Umino, Sydney, 3 Jan. 1993. ↩
104. Bevege, p. 232. ↩
105. Ibid., p. 233. ↩
106. Thomson Zainu’ddin, A., “Rose Inagaki: Is it a Crime to Marry a Foreigner?” in Farley Kelly and Marilyn Lake, ed., Double Time: Women in Victoria’s 150 Years, Penguin Books, 1985, p. 335. ↩
107. Bevege, p. 233. ↩
108. PP 302/1, W.A. 8, 26 Nov. 1941. ↩
109. Peggy Carlie née Shiosaki, Derby, 28 Aug. 1986. ↩
110. Lora Yamaguchi, Mt. Isa, 6 Jun. 1993. ↩
111. Ibid. ↩
112. Arthur Yamaguchi, Pioneer, 16 Jul. 1992. ↩
113. MP 729/6, 63/401/85, 9 Feb. 1940. ↩
114. Bevege, p. 88. ↩
115. BP 242/1, Q 30579, 17 Aug. 1942. ↩
116. MP 1103/2, Individual Detention Order, WJ 18060, WJF 18074, WJF 18085 and WJF 18079. ↩
117. National Security Act, 1939, Section 13 and 1940, Sections 7 & 8. ↩
118. This figure has been calculated from two sources: the number of those who were released during hostilities (see Chapter 4) and A 373, 1/505/48,19 August 1946 which indicates the number of people in this category who remained in detention until after the war. ↩
119. A 373, 1/505/48, 1946. ↩
120. Nationality Act, 1920–1930, Section 6. ↩
121. Aliens Registration Act, 1920, Section 3. ↩
122. Nationality Act, 1920–1930, Section 18. ↩
123. Ibid., Section 12. ↩
124. Nationality Act, 1920, Sections 18 & 20. ↩
125. Campbell, E and Whitmore, H., Freedom in Australia, Sydney University Press, Sydney, 1966, p. 107. ↩
126. Patrick Ahmat, Perth, 22 Aug. 1986. ↩
127. AP 719/3, SA 12667, 8 Jan. 1946. ↩
128. Jack Truan (formally Tolsee), Palmers Island, NSW, 22 May 1993. ↩
129. A 373, 1/505/48, Case No. 9. ↩
130. Ibid., Case No. 34. ↩
131. Sissons, An Immigrant Family, pp. 21–25. ↩
132. Internment Policy, 28 Oct. 1941. ↩
133. Sissons, An Immigrant Family, p. 22. ↩
134. BP 242/1, Q 39362, 24 Dec. 1941. ↩
135. Evelyn Suzuki, Sydney, 7 May 1992. ↩
136. Arthur Yamaguchi, Pioneer, 16 Jul. 1992. ↩
137. Walker, R. and Walker, H., Curtin’s Cowboys: Australia’s Secret Bush Commandos, Sydney, Allen & Unwin, 1986, p. 9. ↩
138. Arthur Yamaguchi, Mt. Isa, Qld., 6 Jun. 1993. ↩
139. Diary of Miki Tsutsumi (Hereafter referred to as Tsutsumi’s Diary), 29 Jan. 1942. ↩
140. Palfreeman, A. C., The Administration of the White Australian Policy, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1967, Table V, p. 146. ↩
141. Sissons, An Immigrant Family mimeographed, ANU, 1975, p. 23. ↩
142. Ibid. ↩
143. A 437/1, 46/6/84, 16 Oct. 1946. ↩
144. BP 242/1, Q 30579, 31 Dec. 1941. ↩
145. AWM 54, pp. 91 and 93. ↩
146. Ibid. ↩
147. Lamidey, Noel W., Aliens Control in Australia: 1939–46 (hereafter referred to as Aliens Control in Australia), Sydney, p. 53. ↩

• Previous
• Home
• Next