Sunrise host Nat Barr has lashed out at the Home Secretary amid calls for him to resign after a pensioner was allegedly punched by a released inmate.
West Australian police say a trio attacked Ninette Simmons, 73, and her husband Philip, 76, alleging her hands were tied behind their backs as they stole $200,000 worth of jewelry.
“Ninette and her husband, I think, needed more than just thoughts and prayers here,” Barr fumed to Interior Minister Clare O’Neil on Wednesday.
“This man was accused of trespassing, driving and drugs. He appeared in court several times.
“One of those charges, as I understand it, was a federal charge. Visa fees that had to be waived due to government error on the part of your government.
“Why wasn’t he wearing an ankle bracelet?
The tense confrontation came as shadow finance minister Jane Hume, also on the programme, stepped up calls for Ms O’Neil’s resignation on live television.
Clare O’Neil has refused to respond to demands for her resignation after a released immigration detainee allegedly hit an elderly woman.
Ms O’Neil did not respond to the question saying she could not comment and would stop any criminal proceedings against the man.
“So one of the layers of protection that we have in place, Nat, is a group of very experienced law enforcement officials who make decisions about how people will be monitored again in the community.
“I cannot speak to 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 puts in place ankle monitoring bracelets and curfews in which a very large investment has been made .”
“Barr fired back: Aren’t you responsible for the Community Protection Board that makes these decisions? »
“And they didn’t give him an anklet?”
“Well, I’m not going to comment on the details of the case.” » said Ms. O’Neil.
Nat Barr asked Ms O’Neil why the man wasn’t wearing an ankle monitor
Immigration Minister Andrew Giles offered to speak to the elderly couple.
One of the alleged perpetrators was part of a cohort of immigrant detainees at the center of a federal political fight.
The 43-year-old was one of 154 men released in November after the High Court ruled indefinite detention was unlawful.
Noting that he was limited in what he could say about a case before the court, Immigration Minister Giles said he had spoken to Washington’s police minister about the matter.
“How can we better support victims, including if they want to speak to me directly to reiterate that this is something I’m very keen to do… if it’s something they’re interested in,” he said. -he declared Tuesday on ABC radio.
The opposition used the alleged attack to criticize the government for failing to monitor released detainees more closely or request that any of them be put back behind bars under emergency powers adopted by Parliament at the end of last year.
“I want to see the Prime Minister sack the two ministers responsible for this terrible circumstance,” said Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
Jamshidi Doukoshkan and two other attackers allegedly beat Ninette Simons, 73, (above) unconscious in Girrawheen, north Perth, on April 16.
Mr Giles hit back, accusing the Opposition Leader of disrespecting the rule of law, pointing out that the government had opposed the High Court decision which released the detainees and must comply with that decision.
“He is misleading the Australian people,” he said.
The government has the power to seek the return of an inmate behind bars, even if they have not yet committed a crime, if they are deemed to pose too high a risk to the safety of the community.
Opposition immigration spokesman Dan Tehan chastised the government for not seeking an order.
“The government stood by and did not act against this regime, knowing that the risks of these hardened criminals reoffending were high,” he told ABC.
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles defended the time it took to seek an order, saying the less than five months since the legislation was implemented was shorter than the coalition had used to seek an order under a similar regime.
Mr Tehan argued the schemes were different.
While he cannot comment on individual requests so as not to prejudice court proceedings, “the requests are on track to address the preventive detention of the most serious and violent offenders,” Mr Giles said.
dailymail us
