Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I do understand that you are able to contest the evidence. My concern is that if you are not there, present at and aware of the search, then you do not have a basis on which to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. I accept that you are able to challenge the admissibility of the evidence in court, but my concern is that if you did not know the search was carried out—you were not aware and you did not know how the search was carried out—then that would make it difficult for you to determine a basis on which to challenge the admissibility of the evidence and the way in which the search was conducted. So I accept that you are able to challenge it—being able to challenge something is good; it is appropriate and you should be able to do it. But if you are not aware of the search and how it was carried out then the basis on which you challenge it is removed—your opportunity to do that is removed.

The minister has, both here and in other fora, pointed to the example of not wanting to tip somebody off that a search is being carried out. I suppose it is about recognising that, in practice, the cops rock up to your house with the warrant and go in. It is not like they say, ‘Hey, we’re going to come and search your house in two weeks.’ You are not told: ‘Hey, clear up your place. The cops are coming around in two weeks. They’ll be searching, so you’d better clear out all the evidence.’ It just does not work like that. The cops rock up to your house with the warrant, they show it to you and in they go. I accept that the minister is trying to make a point, but I just do not think it aligns with the reality of the way in which the searches occur.