Nat Barr delivers brutal takedown of Anthony Albanese’s minister after freed detainee allegedly bashed pensioner – and asks the question on everybody’s mind as pressure mounts for her to resign in tense TV showdown

Sunrise host Nat Barr has let go of the Home Secretary amid calls for her resignation after a pensioner was allegedly punched by a released prisoner.

Western Australian police say a trio attacked 73-year-old Ninette Simmons and her 76-year-old husband Philip, claiming his hands were tied behind his back while they stole $200,000 worth of jewellery.

“I think Ninette and her husband needed more than thoughts and prayers here,” Barr said angrily to Home Secretary Clare O’Neil on Wednesday.

‘This man was charged with trespassing, driving and drugs. He appeared in court several times.

“One of those charges, I understand, was a federal charge. A visa fee that had to be withdrawn due to a government error by your government.

“Why wasn’t he wearing an ankle monitor?”

The tense confrontation came as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Jane Hume, also on the programme, doubled down on live television calling for Ms O’Neil to resign.

Ms O’Neil did not answer the question, saying she could not comment on or pause the criminal proceedings against the man.

“So one of the layers of protection that we have, Nat, is that we have a group of very experienced law enforcement officers making decisions about how people are controlled back into the community.

‘I cannot go into the details of this individual case.

“But I will say that this is one of the layers of protection that we have put in place, including a regime that introduces ankle bracelets and curfews, that we have made really big investments in.”

“Barr fired back: Aren’t you responsible for the Community Protection Board making these decisions?”

“And they didn’t give him an ankle monitor?”

“Well, I’m not going to comment on the details of the case.” said Mrs. O’Neil.

Nat Barr asked Ms O’Neil why the man was not wearing an ankle monitor

Immigration Minister Andrew Giles has offered to speak to the elderly couple.

One of the alleged perpetrators was part of a cohort of immigration detainees at the center of a federal political battle.

The 43-year-old man was one of 154 men released from immigration detention in November after the Supreme Court ruled that indefinite detention was unlawful.

Immigration Minister Giles noted he was limited in what he could say about a case in court and said he had spoken to WA’s police minister about the matter.

“How we can better support victims, including if they want to speak to me directly to reiterate that I’m very happy to do that … if that’s something that’s of interest to them,” he told ABC radio on Tuesday.

The opposition has used the alleged attack to condemn the government for not monitoring the released cohort more closely or applying to have any of them put back behind bars under emergency powers passed late last year parliament have been adopted.

“I want the Prime Minister to fire the two ministers responsible for this terrible circumstance,” said Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

Jamshidi Doukoshkan and two other assailants allegedly knocked 73-year-old Ninette Simons (above) unconscious in Girrawheen in Perth’s north on April 16.

Mr Giles hit back, accusing the opposition leader of disrespecting the rule of law. He stressed that the government opposed the Supreme Court’s decision releasing the prisoners and must abide by the ruling.

“He is misleading the Australian people,” he said.

The government has been given the power to request that a detainee be put back behind bars, even if he has not yet committed a crime, if he is determined to pose too great a risk to the safety of the public community.

Opposition immigration spokesman Dan Tehan chided the government for not seeking an order.

“The government has sat on its hands and taken no action against this regime, knowing that the risk of re-offending by these hardened criminals was high,” he told the ABC.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles defended the amount of time it took to apply for an injunction, saying the less than five months since the legislation was introduced was shorter than the Coalition applying for an injunction under a similar regime.

Mr Tehan argued that the regimes were different.

While he could not comment on individual requests so that court proceedings would not be biased, “applications are well underway to respond to preventive detention for the most serious and violent offenders,” Mr Giles said.