I beg to move amendment No. 551, in page 197, line 17, at end insert

'but that the material cannot at the time of making the application be particularised.'.

The clause deals with search and seizure warrants—again, important powers. Subsection (3) specifies what the application to a judge for a search and seizure warrant must contain. Subsection (2) deals with the person and the property specified in the application or confiscation, money laundering or civil recovery investigation, which must be linked to them.

Subsection (3) provides that

''the warrant is sought for the purposes of the investigation;

(b) that the warrant is sought in relation to the premises specified'' and

''(c) that the warrant is sought in relation to material specified in the application, or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is material falling within section 342(6),(7) or (8) on the premises.''

Reading clauses 342(6), (7) and (8), we find that clause 342(6) states:

''In the case of a confiscation investigation, material falls within this subsection if it cannot be identified at the time of the application but it . . . relates to the person specified in the application'' and goes on to spell that out.

This is a drafting amendment. I could not understand why it was not spelled out in subsection (3) that the material could not be particularised, because it is an important issue. Blanket applications should not be made. I note that that was how the matter was dealt with in previous legislation, which is why I tabled the amendment.