We were even told in advance that the Minister of Finance had decided to relax his self-imposed restrictions on future borrowing for investment purposes - a step that was generally welcomed by expert opinion which recognised that, with interest rates at record low levels, it is a good time to invest in our future.
The main interest in the Budget speech, however, was in how far its claim to be a world-first "Wellbeing Budget" had been justified. The usual cynics had expressed scepticism as to whether the label means anything, but they seem to have missed the real point - and the "wellbeing" aspect seems to have shone through.
Budgets traditionally focus on the issue of how the government manages its own finances, as though a government surplus matters above all else.
The Budget did not ignore these issues - it forecast a strong economic outlook and reports that its own finances are in good shape.
But that is always far too narrow a test of the government's stewardship. It is the economic performance of the country as a whole rather than just that of the government - and the quality of people's lives - that really matter.
Accordingly, the Minister of Finance set out to report to the country, as would the chairman of a board reporting to his shareholders, on how his proposed expenditures would make a difference to people's lives - not just the figures, in other words, but the outcomes.
He presented a Wellbeing Budget that took a wider view, an inter-generational and whole-of-government (including local government and communities) approach, and took into account issues, such as climate change, that take us well beyond the usual year-long budget time horizon.
So much for his commendable aspirations, but how did he do? Opinions will differ but it is hard to quibble with the direction he took. It is surely desirable that the Government's plans and policies should be defined in terms of their outcomes over a wide front, and not just their cost.
So, in addition to the spending already announced, the Minister of Finance provided substantially more resources to make good the endemic underfunding — in areas like health and education - that he inherited from his predecessors (something that lies behind the other big news story of the week - the teachers' strike).
He conceded that not everything could be done at once, but what he offered will certainly make life better for many, particularly in urgent areas like mental health and suicide rates.
Multi-year investment in new school and hospital building, benefits indexed to wage growth, $1 billion to rebuild KiwiRail, more support for Whanau Ora and Oranga Tamariki, special attention to Maori needs, help for new businesses and apprenticeships, research into measures to reduce global warming, were all important features and contributed to a determined effort to build a more caring and kinder society.
Critics from the right, even with the advantage of foreknowledge, will find it difficult to land any real blows on this Budget. The Government may worry more, however, about criticism from the left, to the effect that Grant Robertson did not do more to cast aside the remaining shackles of neo-liberalism and to emulate one of his great predecessors, Walter Nash, in requiring the Reserve Bank to provide the funding for much-needed further investment in housing and other essential infrastructure.
But, the overall verdict? Despite the distractions, so far, so good - and there is no doubt more wellbeing to come in future Budgets.
