I note that another concern that has been raised is proposed warrantless powers, which the police or other relevant agencies need to detect concerning behaviour, so that they can act effectively to prevent a terrorist act being carried out. Given the fluid and unpredictable nature by which planning may move to more advanced conduct to commit a terrorist act, warrantless powers are necessary to identify the relevant behaviour and to intervene quickly to prevent such activity escalating. Police need powers to take appropriate action to intervene to preclude the attack and, without warrantless powers, that may not be possible until too late. The way this has been framed is appropriate. The exercise of the warrantless powers in question requires reasonable grounds to believe that evidence relating to the planning or preparation offence is in the place of or on the person to be searched. In relation to searches of place, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that, if entry is delayed, the evidential material will be destroyed, concealed, altered, or damaged. Reasonable grounds to believe requires a high degree of certainty from the officer exercising the power. It does not permit fishing expeditions in the hope that relevant evidence will be obtained or a mere hunch that, unless entry is secured, the evidence may be destroyed, concealed, altered, or damaged. Again, the right balance has been struck here.