A uniform scheme for regulating the use of tracking devices was also introduced. Previously, the only legislative scheme with regard to tracking devices related to the investigation of drug dealing offences. The new scheme is of general application and allows a warrant to be issued by a Judge authorising the use of a tracking device where certain conditions are met, including that it is in the public interest to issue a warrant, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the degree to which privacy or property rights are likely to be intruded upon, the usefulness of the information likely to be obtained and whether it is reasonably practicable for the information to be obtained in another way. The anti-terrorism legislation enacted thus far has been the subject of significant public comment. The Government initially planned to pass the Terrorism Suppression Act without public submissions but, after a public outcry, changed this position. It is now generally agreed that the final legislation dealt with most features of the proposed legislation which had concerned civil rights groups. Changes made during the Parliamentary process included an amendment to the definition of “terrorist act” in order to “raise the threshold and to focus the definition more squarely on acts intended to induce terror”. A proviso to the terrorist financing offences was added to provide that it is not an offence to “provide or collect funds intending that they be used, or knowing that they are to be used, for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights”. The requirements of the offence of participating in a terrorist group were also tightened, so that it is also necessary to participate for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a terrorist entity to participate in the carrying out of terrorist acts. The process for designating terrorist entities was substantially revised to include a knowledge component and an earlier expiration date. The susceptibility of designation decisions to judicial review was also reinstated. The original Bill had ousted the possibility of judicial review and instead contained a process of review by the InspectorGeneral of Intelligence and Security.248 Some concerns have, however, been expressed at the general widening of the scope of the general criminal law (and in particular search and seizure powers). As one commentator put it, “the people who tend to be affected will be ordinary New Zealanders" and not terrorists. 248 The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is an independent office held by a retired High Court Judge. The Inspector-General is responsible for assisting each Minister responsible for an intelligence and security agency in the oversight and review of those agencies. In particular the Inspector-General is responsible for assisting the Minister to ensure that the activities of New Zealand intelligence and security agencies comply 115