Cybercrime bill must protect right to privacy

THERE'S a strange contradiction at the heart of much of the political discussion about privacy. As is evident in the News International phone-hacking scandal, parliamentarians are among the first to condemn the media for invasions of privacy, yet they too often appear reluctant to entertain similar concerns if there is any risk of jeopardising legislative plans or irritating allies.

A new cybercrime bill introduced by federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland in June and sent for consideration to Parliament's joint select committee on cybersafety makes clear this conundrum. The legislation seeks to amend existing laws so that Australia can accede to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, an international treaty on crimes committed using computer networks. It would allow greater sharing of communications data with foreign countries.

At first glance this seems commendable. The convention targets criminals who infiltrate computer networks across international borders and do incalculable harm to civil society: terrorists, pornographers and paedophile rings, illegal traffickers in weapons, drugs and human beings, money launderers and cybercriminals. Its objective is ''a common criminal policy aimed at the protection of society against cybercrime by adopting appropriate legislation and fostering international co-operation''. Among other powers, this grants law enforcement agencies, such as America's FBI or London's Metropolitan Police, the right to search computer networks and seize material that might become important in an investigation. The Law Council of Australia has expressed concern that the threshold test and reporting requirements in relation to information sought in a foreign investigation are not as stringent as those required for domestic investigations. The Age shares this concern.

Unlike Australians, Europeans have rights to privacy and free speech enshrined in law. By contrast, our fundamental human rights lack the protection of inclusion in the constitution or a bill of rights. As a result, the bill should ring alarm bells in this country. It means the caveat in the convention that it is ''mindful of the need to ensure a proper balance between the interests of law enforcement and respect for fundamental human rights as enshrined in the 1950 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms'' gives no guarantee that citizens of this country will be treated fairly.

Surely, if we learnt anything from our government's collusion with the United States in holding Australians without trial in Guantanamo Bay, it was the need to be vigilant about retaining autonomy in international law and not allowing fears about security to override long-established rights.

It is reassuring, therefore, that the cybersafety committee did register concern. It has made 13 recommendations on the bill and has stressed the need to balance rights to privacy against any proposed increase in powers to crack online criminal networks.

It has requested that the bill ''elaborate more precisely the requirement that the authorising officer consider and weigh the proportionality of the intrusion into privacy against the value of the potential evidence and needs of the investigation''.

At a time when the boundaries between what is public and what is private appear to be crumbling, it is imperative that we proceed with care. There is a cautionary tale in the way phone-tapping legislation - introduced for all the ''right'' reasons as a crime-fighting tool - has at times been abused by police and politicians. Experience both at home and abroad tells us that an implied request to ''trust us, we're the government'' is never good enough.

The law itself must prevent governments, both present and future, from abusing their powers and it must provide recourse should they attempt to do so.

Cricket's day of reckoning is hereTEST cricket is in crisis in Australia. The team has not coped well with the loss of a generation of gifted champions led by Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Adam Gilchrist. Since their retirement, Australia has crashed from first to fifth in the world Test rankings. The record-breaking era of dominance from 1995 to 2007, when Australia won 35 Test series and lost only five, is a receding memory. Australia has won only five of its past 11 series, and the insipid performance during last summer's Ashes matches provided stark evidence of the decline in quality at the elite level.

The game's governing body, Cricket Australia, is to be congratulated for commissioning a review to seek to find out what has gone wrong and what should be done about it. That review, headed by business leader Don Argus and informed by successful former captains Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh, has laid bare structural and cultural problems that must be confronted if the Australian Test team is to retain the affection of future generations of fans and potential players.

The Argus report, released last Friday, finds Australia's basic cricket skills are lacking. Our batsman, it says, have lost the ability to occupy the crease for long periods, and technique against the swinging and spinning ball is inadequate. Our bowlers are unable to build pressure on opposing teams by adhering to an agreed plan for any extended period. Fielding, especially catching and ''general athleticism'', is also in marked decline, a commentary on the attitude and professionalism of the elite squad.

Perhaps more damning is the finding that modern Australian cricket is infected by a culture of indulged mediocrity. ''Players can make a very comfortable living without necessarily achieving excellence,'' the report says. ''Today's players are being paid substantially more in real terms than their counterparts in the dominant teams of recent times, despite far inferior results.''

The Argus prescription is welcome. He calls for increased professionalism and accountability at the top of the sport. For the first time, the chairman of selectors will be a full-time job. Player payments will be more closely aligned to individual and team performances. And, in this age of lucrative Twenty20 franchise cricket, the pre-eminence of five-day Test cricket will be reaffirmed.

Any search for ''the next Shane Warne'' is doomed to disappoint he was unique. But the Argus report is a solid foundation for Australian cricket's quest for a Test team that can once again be the pride of this sports-loving nation.