Dita De Boni: Now who will watch the spies?

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman believes there should be proper oversight of the secuirity agencies. Picture / Peter Meecham

Someone needs to ask the tough questions now the Greens are off the Intelligence and Security Committee

How much easier will it be for the review of the country's security agencies to proceed smoothly without the bothersome Greens?

Easier than before, for sure, but then that wouldn't be hard. That's because the parliamentary body that will undertake the review, the Intelligence and Security Committee, has a pretty easy job of it anyhow - it's never given any information, can't demand answers, and can't effect change. Cups of tea? Fine. Actual oversight? You're joking.

It will probably, however, appreciate a much more cordial environment at its sporadic meetings without the presence of the Greens - the one political party genuinely and consistently interested in getting answers out of our spies.

Last year, Russel Norman lodged written questions to the Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau, asking if they receive funding from any of our Five Eyes partners, or if they'd hired large IT firms involved in the collection of metadata.

It was the first time the agencies had agreed to answer the questions. They didn't actually answer, of course - that information was apparently "operationally sensitive".

For those looking for answers, clues provided by Glen Greenwald and Edward Snowden would have to suffice, threaded together with the knowledge that New Zealand seems to lose its sovereignty in matters of intelligence, trade and security by the day.

The fact the Greens still bothered to ask the questions suggests they take their role as defender of the public good seriously. That might be all a bit of an unnecessary nuisance for the National Party, but why should the Labour Party, supposedly invigorated with the thought of holding the Government's feet to the fire, see fit to shaft them so publicly this week?

Pundits have it right: they've brought the National Party line that the Greens are too "scary" for "middle New Zealand" and are looking to place themselves at a safe, bland distance.

But Labour should wake up. Like many social democratic movements around the world, the corporate, comfortable left is losing support to insurgent left-wing parties with heart and a defining vision.

Look at the UK, where the Greens are now the fourth-largest political party. Look at the anti-austerity movements in Greece and Spain - and possibly Ireland and Portugal yet to come.

In New Zealand we've been too comfortable to seriously look for alternatives so far, but the time will undoubtedly come - and the danger to Labour is there may well be genuine alternatives sought.

Back to security and intelligence, and it is interesting to note that right from the very first day he became a member of the committee in 2009, Dr Norman was subjected to the same "establishment" viewpoint from a Labour man - Michael Cullen.

Dr Cullen's patronising comments to the new committee members, including Tariana Turia, were the following: "I think both Dr Norman and Mrs Turia ... will be disappointed that even the Intelligence and Security Committee ... does not actually delve into vast amounts of detail. If they think they are going to find out where all our spies are stationed around the world, exactly what they get up to, and whom they are watching, they will be deeply disappointed."

He argued there was little to be gained in more transparency, and signed off cheerily: "I am very happy ... to wish the members of the committee the same long, happy, and enjoyable meetings that I had when I was a member of the committee over recent years."

In reply, Dr Norman laid out his alternative vision. "[W]e need to have proper oversight of the security agencies. We need to have a select committee that is chaired by someone independent - someone other than the minister responsible ... we believe that this committee should be abolished, and that the powers that rest with this committee should be returned to Parliament."

Nothing's changed. In fact, we need oversight of our security agencies more than ever before, as they expand their powers in response to our involvement in foreign theatres of war. We need to know why these agencies' budgets continue to grow without any corresponding accountability.

We need to know if we are being spied upon or not - and by whom. With the loss of the Green Party on the Intelligence and Security Committee, we are further away from getting answers than ever before.