She (Amy Adams) seems to have forgotten what her predecessors, who she deified, inherited when they (John Key and Bill English) came to power in 2008.
The debt was at just five and a half percent of what the country was worth, or GDP, down from 23 percent, and they grew it to around 30 percent, at one point borrowing $380 million a week.
Okay so they had the global financial crisis to cope with and the earthquakes but they also inherited the China free trade deal, signed a month before they came to office. Slashing debt didn't stop the Clark Labour Government breathing life into the ACC corpse and setting up the Cullen fund, now worth around $40 billion without contributions from National.
Perhaps rather than harping on about the balance sheet, Adams should focus her attention on a more balanced society.
I don't know how many people actually think about it, but obviously not that reporter. If the government has no money spare then they can't contribute to the super-fund. Labour supporters tout the increase in debt under National's reign as a sign of failure, but does it make sense to borrow money to contribute to a super-fund? No. Furthermore, had they increased debt to do so, it would have only increased the criticisms of labour supporters. You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.