Mr English simply shuffled money around, with $4.4 billion of new spending over the next four years offset by $3 billion in cost savings and $1.4 billion of new revenue.
That gave him the opportunity to release his much promised "zero Budget" - which attracted the expected criticism from Opposition party leaders.
The new spending was weighted towards health, education, welfare, law and order and science and innovation, and delivered on what National set out in its 2011 election campaign manifesto.
Plans to partially sell state-owned assets will continue, with proceeds to be placed in a Future Investment Fund.
Prime Minister John Key said the Budget invested in New Zealand's future.
"Our priorities are responsibly managing the Government's finances, building a more productive economy, delivering better public services within tight financial constraints and rebuilding Christchurch."
The Government remained on track to return to surplus by June 2015 but its commitment to surplus was not a single-minded goal - rather, it was part of a wider programme to build a more productive and competitive economy and a brighter future for all New Zealanders, he said.
Vulnerable New Zealanders were being protected through Working for Families, New Zealand Superannuation and welfare benefits, he said.
Mr Key said the Government firmly believed people who could work should work. That was why the Government was investing in ambitious welfare reform so beneficiaries were better supported and encouraged to move into work.
One of the disappointing aspects of the Budget debate was the lack of constructive criticism from Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First.
The leaders - David Shearer, Russel Norman and Winston Peters respectively - instead adopted cliches in their attacks on the Budget.
Mr Shearer said National delivered a "departure lounge" Budget that would have more New Zealanders looking for opportunities and a brighter future offshore.
"This truly is a zero Budget. It has zero growth and zero aspirations for New Zealanders. It offers zero hope that it will grow our economy now or in the years ahead."
Dr Norman said the Government had failed to "rebalance the economy" as it had promised. It had focused on managing the finances but offered nothing by way of a plan to grow the economy and offer New Zealanders some hope.
Mr Peters described the Budget as a leap "back to the future" and said it was mean-spirited and nasty.
It was left to financial analysts and accountancy firms to provide more in-depth criticism of the Budget - and not all of it was favourable.
There was a general feeling the forecasts contained within the Budget were over-optimistic, there was not enough clarity around the rebuilding of Christchurch and that plans for the Future Investment Fund were not detailed enough.
In response, Mr English said that at a time when many governments overseas were undertaking radical measures to get their books in order, the New Zealand Government had found savings and new revenue of $4.4 billion while maintaining high-quality frontline public services and income support to the most vulnerable.
"This Government is focused on getting better results rather than just increasing inputs. If something works, we'll keep on doing it. If it doesn't, then we will stop it and put the money into an area that yields better results."
