I would actually have to say that when he talked about the job that National did in analogous circumstances—not similar, but analogous circumstances—through the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes: yes, they went from a position of no net debt as a percentage of GDP, and obviously leveraged up to deal with those and continued to spend, but, actually, being fiscally conservative probably had a dampening effect on the economy and kept those constraints on longer than was necessary. One of the impacts of that is that whilst central government might have kept its levels of debt low, actually, if you look at household debt, which shows up on page 9 of the Budget Policy Statement, what you will see is that that rose over the period of National being in Government. The reason for that is because there was not sufficient social spending going on in the economy over that period of time. So what has happened is that, because National doesn't believe in paying people minimum wages and because they think that the costs should be borne by low-income families rather than by all of us equally, actually what that has done is driven households into debt. We see some of the consequences of that, and it's going to take quite some time for us to unwind.