Just over six months ago, the Prime Minister and Attorney-General called a surprise press conference in Canberra. They claimed they'd received information regarding an imminent terrorist threat, and that the new anti-terrorism laws being considered by Parliament needed an urgent amendment.

JOURNALIST: If enacted, Prime Minister, will that trigger Once this amendment is enacted, is that likely to trigger a definite action? Are you expecting it will trigger a definite action by police?

JOHN HOWARD, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: The amendment will not alter the independent action of law enforcement authorities. I'm not...look, I am not going to speculate on what the.. Could I finish? I am not going to speculate on what the law enforcement authorities will do on an operational matter. I do not talk about operational matters.

But several days later a series of coordinated raids were launched in Sydney and Melbourne involving ASIO and hundreds of State and federal police. 17 men were charged with a range of terrorism offences under the new laws. After the raids, the NSW Police Commissioner confirmed the importance of these new powers.

KEN MORONEY, NSW POLICE COMMISSIONER: Certainly the Commonwealth legislation, as it was passed last week, assisted us.

But now that the courts are beginning to hear cases against those charged under the new anti-terrorism regime, the nature of the laws is becoming apparent - they are astonishingly broad. The police can arrest anyone they suspect of preparing for a terrorist act. No date, target, or specific act is required. Critics claim that the laws are so broad and vague that they effectively target "thought crime".
Anything a suspect possesses could also be illegal if it can be linked to the preparation of a terrorist act. It's this last power that is perhaps one of the most troubling.

MAN READS: “A person commits an offence if, A - the person possesses a thing, and, B - the thing is connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act, and, C - the person knows of the connection. Penalty - imprisonment for 15 years."

This charge has already been laid in a number of terrorism cases. Earlier this month, Faheem Khalid Lodhi was convicted of several terrorism-related offences, including possession of a "thing". In Lodhi's case, and in others before the courts, the thing has turned out to be a document. Melbourne criminal lawyer Rob Stary is one of those coming to grips with the new laws.

REPORTER: Were you surprised that a single document could result in a potential charge of 15 years?

ROB STARY, CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYER: Absolutely. The possession of a thing where - as I said - by itself is not an offence, but if it is used in some other purpose - furtherance of a terrorist act or terrorist objective. It's, as I said, completely inconsistent with how the criminal law has evolved. And anything that was as remote as the possession of a thing couldn't of itself result in the laying of a criminal offence.

REPORTER: This is a website hosted by an Israeli University. Within about 30 seconds, I've found a document in Arabic. It's a bulletin from a training camp in Saudi Arabia. This particular document has resulted in someone being charged with preparing for a terrorism offence in Australia. Whether or not I've committed an offence by downloading and printing it off is unclear.

ROB STARY: If you recklessly possess the document, then you can be liable to a term of imprisonment of 10 years. How that is ever going to play out I don't know, where people might be reckless as to their possession of various items. I'm sure that there are numerous people who have accessed what the authorities would describe as offensive literature, jihadist literature. How they might possess it and what they use it for, or if they use it in connection with the furtherance or the promotion of the terrorist group, are they going to be liable to prosecution? I don't know.

Some of the terrorism charges already laid have involved possession of maps and satellite photos, and I put some of these example cases to the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock.

REPORTER: For instance, I have quite a detailed satellite photograph of Parliament House. Why is that not an offence for me to have a document? There are offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code for possession of a thing or a document in preparation for a terrorist offence. Why is it not a problem for me to have this document?

PHILIP RUDDOCK, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, the question is, if you have that document - and I probably have a similar document - where is the connection? The connection is you have to have that document in preparation for a terrorist act. I mean, that's what you need to have it for and that's what has to be proven.

REPORTER: So there's no problem me, per se, having this particular document?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: There's no problem about you having a document, but when you connect it with other evidence that might be available that goes to your intention and establishing your intention, it may well be an important part of the pattern to establish your guilt.

I then asked Mr Ruddock about the document that I'd downloaded from the Internet.

REPORTER: So what is it about this particular document that I can possess…

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, let's not talk about a document that might have been used in a particular trial. Let me just say that there are a variety of documents that potentially there may be a concern if it is linked with other evidence about a person's intention to engage in a terrorist act.

As a working journalist not intending to blow anything up, I'd probably have a pretty good defence for having documents relating to terrorism. But the way the law is framed, I need to provide proof of that if the charge is laid against me. What concerns many lawyers is the broad definition of terrorist action under the new laws.

PATRICK EMERTON, MONASH UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Once you criminalise such a wide range of political violence, or threats of political violence, it's obvious you are not going to prosecute it all. So, for example, the Liberal Party of Australia fostered the doing of a terrorist act, namely the invasion of Iraq, but we know that no member of the Liberal Party of Australia is going to be prosecuted for being a member of a terrorist organisation. Like, that's so clearly commonsense. So you are relying on the Government to decide, who's legitimate politics, and who's not legitimate. And I think for nearly everyone there's a point at which where suddenly they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of that divide.

The new laws also make it illegal to supply money to any group that fits the description of a terrorist organisation.

PATRICK EMERTON: I've spoken to the Christian churches. They are worried because they support people in West Papua, they support Christian groups fighting with the government in Burma.

REPORTER: So they can conceivably see an occasion or a possibility that they may be caught in the same laws.

PATRICK EMERTON: They can see, for example, that by sending money to support Christian separatists in the borders between Burma and Thailand, they may be sending money to a terrorist organisation. I mean, almost certainly they are. The thing is, at the moment, DPP and ASIO and the Attorney-General are not interested in investigating that. But what happens if our policy to Burma changes and suddenly they are investigated?

REPORTER: Should I be concerned if I'm sending money to a Christian opposition group in Burma, that I might get a knock on the door?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: No. But you should be concerned if you are sending money to an organisation that is carrying out terrorist acts.

The Government also has unprecedented new powers to control what happens in court. If it uses information from ASIO or other sensitive sources as evidence in a terrorism case, the Government can demand that all lawyers involved get security clearances before they see this evidence. The problem is that it's ASIO, and ultimately the Attorney-General, who grant those security clearances.

PATRICK EMERTON: So it's a secret process, being done by an executive department under the control of the Attorney-General, I think it's a pretty extreme conflict of interest. It's in the neighbourhood of the Attorney-General sanctioning which lawyers get to represent defence...defendants, at least in the context of these hearings where there's an insistence that security clearances be required.

REPORTER: It's been expressed to me that you are almost in a position to be able to pick and choose which defence lawyers appear in these cases by virtue of granting or denying those security clearances.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, that's not so.

REPORTER: Why is that not so?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Because anyone is entitled to appear, they just don't get access to the information.

REPORTER: But presumably they'd be unable to operate if the National Security Information Act was applied, if information was led, and they were uncleared - and the case we've had in Victoria where the legal aid has become contingent on those security clearances being granted.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Look, I suspect that most legal practitioners applying for a security clearance would get one.

REPORTER: But nevertheless, there is this appearance that you are able to, by being in the position of both granting those security clearances and also acting in a prosecutorial role, intervening in some of these cases, that you are conflicted in some way.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, look, I'm prepared to defend what we do in the national interest.

A number of defence lawyers have already refused to apply for government security clearances in terrorism trials.

REPORTER: What's wrong inherently with barristers getting security clearances? Why is that a bad thing?

ROB STARY: There can't be any perception that the barristers or the advocates are going to be compromised in any way. We don't want them to where the Attorney-General has a separate right of representation in the case, then be...in any way be seen to be beholden to the attorney in terms of the security clearance.

REPORTER: So it's possible the judge, the jury, and presumably the prosecution could see some critical evidence that could result in proving of guilt of somebody, and neither the defence nor the accused themselves could ever see that material?

ROB STARY: And we might never know what that evidence was.

REPORTER/CAMERA: Thom Cookes.
ADDITIONAL CAMERA: David Brill.
EDITOR: David Potts.
PRODUCER: Amos Cohen.