Suppose that your primary macroeconomic worry is the public debt. While NZ has a low public debt and the bond rate is at a record low, the possibility of another global fuck-up poses a risk, and you might want to flatten NZ's debt trajectory to reduce that risk. Fiscally, National aren't going to enact further stimulus, let alone socialisation.Three kinds of options are under discussion in the consensusphere:

1. Reduce the deficit through tax hikes or lower spending
2. Reduce current debt by selling assets
3. Do nothing

In a weak economy, any action to reduce the deficit will be painful. Even cut in spending with a small proportionate labour cost, like motorways, would lead to substantial job losses. Firstly, spending on materials creates jobs in those sectors as well, albeit less directly. Secondly, a big chunk of the job creation or loss is through multiplier effects. Even a more left-correct option like a higher top tax rate would dent growth -- and thus might be counterproductive. You'd probably need a multiplier well below 0.5 for the tax hike to pay off even in strict terms of debt sustainability.

If reducing debt by selling assets seems like kicking the can down the road, it is. Since the bond rate is lower that the rate of profit, to improve the fiscal situation you need buyers that believe they can run the show more efficiently than the government. However, if you're not selling a majority stake, there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe efficiency gains are possible.

That leaves doing nothing. Like the other options, this relies on an eventual return to trend growth leading to a return to surplus. Thus the problem reduces, once again, to how to get the economy to or above trend growth sooner rather that later, which is the problem I usually write about. Even if you're primarily worried worried about debt, you should be primarily worried about growth.