The Government is reviewing the anti-terror laws because of the carnage of the poorly enacted Urewera raids meaning authorities don't want to use them.

Minister responsible for GCSB and SIS Andrew Little, has ordered officials to fully scrutinise the Terrorism Suppression Act and the Counter Terrorism Act, both passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 and Bali bombings.

They were judged "unworkable" after the botched Urewera raids in 2007, and Little says authorities are now "reluctant" to use them.

While Little wants to remain open to what will happen, police are pushing for greater powers to intervene earlier when they detect suspicious behaviour.

READ MORE:

* Review of terror laws stopped

* Botched legislation left spies without some powers for six months

* Tuhoe community 10 years after the Urewera raids

The raids saw 17 people face a total of 291 charges under the Arms Act - most had their charges dropped when evidence was ruled inadmissible in court. Only four – Tame Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Urs Signer and Emily Bailey – were convicted.

DOMINICO ZAPATA/STUFF Tame Iti was arrested on gun charges during a series of dawn raids, as part of the current counter terrorism legislation.

The Human Rights Commission received 31 complaints about police actions during the raids, including being stopped at a roadblock at Ruatoki and being photographed without consent, the negative implications of using the Terrorism Suppression Act, and the impact on children confined for several hours, some without food.

Trying to thwart terrorism and radicalisation before it happens is a dilemma many countries are wrestling with.

Britain, one of New Zealand's partners in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, offers early intervention programmes, operated by police, community and religious leaders. But last year it also introduced tough new measures that could see those who repeatedly viewed terrorist content online jailed for up to 15 years.

AP The 9/11 bombings saw a wave of tougher anti-terrorism laws across the world.

"We wouldn't go that far, but we have got to keep a check on whether our legislation allows our authorities to intervene - not necessarily to detain – to prevent what looks like the risk of a violent action," Little says.

New Zealand's South East Asian neighbours, Australia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia, are dealing with a heightened risk due to a flow of foreign fighters returning from Syria and Iraq, radicalised and trained in violence. But New Zealand's terror threat remains low, with only 30 to 40 people of concern to the security services.

"We have an obligation to keep all the community safe ... what powers do you need to do that in this environment of heightened access to images and video footage of violent extremism? Do you need powers to act earlier? Those are the questions we are contending with," Little says.

GRANT MATTHEW/STUFF Andrew Little is the Justice Minister and Minister Responsible for the NZSIS and GCSB.

Wrestling encrypted data from tech giants and services, like WhatsApp, is also on the table, after the issue was raised at a Five Eyes meeting.

Officials from the Justice Ministry, Police and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet are reviewing the legislation and will deliver a report next year. Little says he wants a public debate on any proposed changes.

But legal expert Cameron Walker, of Auckland University, says the independent Law Commission should carry out the review.

NEWS LTD The 2002 attack on a Bali nightclub claimed the lives of 202 people.

"Those are the government departments responsible for running the act. It's a conflict of interest."

Walker wrote a thesis on how the legislation was ripe for abuse.

"It could be a bad thing if they beef up the legislation. Sometimes with these reviews, they already have a clear plan of action and that would be my concern. There is a danger the legislation could be made even worse."

GETTY IMAGES The rubble of the World Trade Center smoulders following a terrorist attack September 11, 2001 in New York.

Former Green MP Keith Locke is an opponent of the legislation: he said terrorism laws were unnecessary because such activity was already covered by the Crimes Act.

"One of the problems is because there aren't any real terrorists in New Zealand there is a tendency to go over the top. I prefer repeal rather than review. A review assumes you can deal with terrorist actions separate from the criminal law and I think that is a problem. You can see it in Australia and America – people can be criminalised for what they say rather than what they do.

"If a review leads to more decisions in that direction, that is more of a restraint on free speech and dissent."

There may be cross house support for these changes. National is supportive of any efforts to keep New Zealanders safe and will consider the changes when they are put forward, a spokesman says.

The Terrorism Suppression Act carries a maximum sentence of 14 years for planning or preparing to commit a terrorist act.

The Counter Terrorism Act, passed a year later, gave enhanced powers to police and customs, and allowed for greater use of tracking devices.

At the time of creation there were warnings from activists and civil libertarians the laws went too far.