Last week, the Prime Minister flagged changes to the Criminal Code to protect the military from being charged with war crimes for bombing IS people not directly involved in fighting.
But there are fears from some quarters it could, in some way, "immunise" soldiers and officers if a bombing raid resulted in a large loss of civilian life.
When outlining the new laws last week, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the Australian Defence Force needed further protection against prosecution in the fight against IS.
He explained that under current legislation, military people could potentially be liable to prosecution under domestic law for the death of a person who was "not causing hostilities."
Alongside Defence Force Chief Mark Binskin, Mr Turnbull told reporters the legislation change would bring Australian law into line with international law in the fight against IS, or Daesh.
"Under international law, all members of an organised armed group such as Daesh can be targeted with lethal force, subject, of course, to the ordinary rules of international humanitarian law. This is a reasonable and conventional approach adopted by the armed forces of our key allies across the world. But there is a legal argument that Australia's domestic law is more restrictive than international law. This legal risk posed a major challenge to the effectiveness of our operations."
Australia is a key member targeting IS in Iraq and Syria as part of a United States-led bombing coalition.
The Australian Defence Force has been part of the operations in the Middle East for two years now.
Dr Gideon Boas, of Melbourne's Monash University, explains law on operations against a terrorist organisation is covered in various Geneva conventions and customary international law.
It is binding on all countries.
He says, although there is a gap between Australian and international law on the matter, the risk the Prime Minister referred to is small.
"There is a prospect that, under Australian domestic law, if the conduct of the soldier engaging in the targeting was reckless as to the injury or death of a civilian person, then there's a prospect of prosecution. Now the likelihood of that occurring is probably minimal, and I gather from what's been said in parliament that this is really just designed to cover off the unlikely event that an allegation of that kind, or a prosecution of that kind, might occur."
But while Dr Boas considers the reasons for the change legitimate, he says the announcement left some ambiguity and could potentially have devastating consequences.
He says, if the laws are overreaching, heavy civilian casualties resulting from Australian bombing raids could happen with no legal accountability.
"It's a legitimate concern, and it's a change that could legitimately be made. I think we need to see the detail of the law that's proposed. If what's being proposed here is simply encapsulating the principles of international humanitarian law, there are built-in safeguards there. If it's proposed that the laws go further than that, and in some way immunise soldiers and officers from targets -- or from the outcome of targets -- that have a military objective but have an excessive civilian damage component, then that's of grave concern and we should do something about that."
But fellow academic and military law expert David Letts, from the Australian National University, says he disagrees there should be any concern.
Professor Letts says he believes the Government clearly stated its purpose.
"Certainly, the clarity, in terms of what the Government has said it wants to amend, yeah, I think that's quite clear. It certainly is not a broad, sweeping announcement that Australia is going to amend its domestic law so that targeting can be of such a width that, as a matter of course, there would be civilian casualties involved in Australian military operations. There's no suggestion of that at all."
Professor Letts says he thinks the only ambiguity is related to which specific section of the Criminal Code will be overhauled.
"The grey area is that the Government, in the announcement, has not tabled what the precise amendments to the Criminal Code are. So that's the source of speculation, if you like, that, until that is tabled, until there's a bill that's put before the parliament, the precise nature of the changes are not clear. But the statement from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence clarifies that as much as possible in the absence of a bill before the parliament."
But Greens senator Scott Ludlam agrees with Dr Boas that the announcement left much unanswered.
Senator Ludlam says he believes the finer details will not be known until the bill is tabled, meaning fears for civilian life will receive little parliamentary debate or independent analysis.
"Parliament is sidelined. Committees are sidelined. There's no real possibility until after the fact of establishing why these changes are needed. The main issue we have, really, is that it potentially opens up greater risks to civilian casualties in a place where it's already formidably difficult to establish what's going on as a consequence of the bombing campaign, and we don't really quite see how the case is being made that this is a necessary change. Now it may be that it's entirely justifiable, but, from our point of view, anything that potentially changes the definition of war crime involving civilians who might be in the way when bombs are dropped is due proper scrutiny."
SBS approached the office of Defence Minister Marise Payne for comment and is still awaiting a response.
