Cullen fills the political breach left by Labour

insisting the National Party had ‘‘failed to take into account the important TWG recommendations which would actually reduce [his emphasis] tax on most KiwiSaver accounts’’.

According to the analysis by my colleague Tom Pullar-Strecker, while both Bridges and Cullen were strictly correct, both were ignoring the wider context. In simple terms, Bridges appears to have conveniently ignored the fact that the TWG recommended a range of other types of tax cuts and relief which would offset some of the impact, including directly on KiwiSaver. Certain savers would take a hit, but more would benefit.

Cullen, meanwhile, over-egged the benefits, taking suggested options and reinventing them as ‘‘recommendations’’. These too are presented quite out of context. One of the ‘‘recommendations’’ would be so expensive (about $5 billion over five years) that the chances of adoption by the Government are almost certainly zero.

Between politicians, this would simply be the fog of war. But, in this context at least, Cullen is not a politician. He is the chairman of a group whose report the Government now holds and can take it or leave it. Was he right to intervene in this way?

Since the TWG’s final report was delivered in late February, hundreds of stories and opinion pieces have been written, both for and against. National has not issued a press release on anything other than the report since the day Cullen made his presentation. Some of the debate has been factual and balanced, while some has been hysterical and downright wrong.

On Tuesday, Cullen claimed the reason he responded to Bridges’ claims was that they were ‘‘inaccurate and potentially misleading’’ and that, unlike other commentators, Bridges’ statements were likely to be more widely reported. He then suggested a claim made by National’s primary industries spokesman, Nathan Guy, about the impact on farmers was ‘‘particularly egregious’’ and that he may also issue a response to that too.

Cullen bristled at what he claimed was the suggestion that, because a statement was made by National, he could not refute it. ‘‘One isn’t castrated the day they leave politics.’’

But the fact is, Cullen is only commenting on the statements made by National. Although he was happy to name examples of ‘‘silly’’ stories on the impact of CGT, his only official response to any commentary on the report has been to attack a claim made by the Opposition leader, with a response which is also questionable.

The Government is doing its best to hose down the debate. At Monday’s post-Cabinet press conference, Ardern devoted extensive time to a discussion document on ticket scalpers, and most of the rest to the plight of jihadi Mark Taylor. After about a minute of general questions, she almost raced from the stage.

The Government is free to adopt the strategy of sitting on the sidelines of the CGT debate until the coalition is ready to make its response. But the sidelines are exactly that. Cullen’s intervention looks highly political. If the Government is not ready to make the case for change, Labour’s grandees – especially those in official positions – should not be doing the political work for them.