In a sense, every Budget is a wellbeing Budget. It is about the allocation of government money and resources and the wellbeing of the country in various ways. Supposedly, what makes this edition different is more spending on "wellbeing'', the likes of mental health and child poverty. As well, parts of the Budget are presented in a different form as the Government grapples with wellbeing measures.
Critics can point to National's Bill English and his endeavours to develop "social investment'' aimed at measurable positive results. The idea was that intensive services would wrap around those most in need and most vulnerable. Short-term costs would flow through to long-term social and financial benefits. It could be argued that National's increase in core benefit payments of $25 in 2015 was also about "wellbeing''.
But why was this Budget relatively cautious in the face of calls for "transformation''? Finance Minister Grant Robertson, with support from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, is trying not just to balance the books but also the pressures from the Left and the centre.
Despite the high-sounding words, an incremental Budget has been presented. It steers a course that maintains surpluses, at least for a few years, while increasing spending overall, notably on social security and welfare.
The Government knows it has to put up with the impatience of those, including many in Labour, who want that radical "transformation''. It recognises both fiscal reality and, as former prime minister Helen Clark did, the need to bring the electorate along. The Government is also mindful it needs business to keep investing and hiring. It walks a tightrope with that sector as well.
The recent failure of Labor in Australia will reinforce the need to carry the middle. The way to achieve some sort of "transformation'', or a ``just transition'' as Ms Ardern has called it, is step-by-step.
The Government was fortunate - except for the expectations it created - to inherit growing surpluses. It has continued to be blessed as the money has kept rolling in. Farming and commodity prices have held up and tourist numbers are high. There has been no major drought, devastating earthquake or global financial crisis.
In hindsight, these will be looked upon as good times for most people. This is an era for steady but also prudent spending. If the threatening clouds of global economic weakness burst, New Zealand needs to be firmly anchored. We remain a vulnerable and isolated trading nation, even though our government accounts are healthier than in many countries.
Few could begrudge the spending on mental health, an area of burgeoning need. Hopefully, this can translate into better services and better outcomes. The linking of benefit increases to rises in the average wage, meanwhile, seems fair, even if the difference it makes will be gradual.
The Government knows it has to be cautious not to embed too much ongoing spending. The healthy looking books rapidly will turn sick if predicted growth fails to eventuate.
Last year's Budget was called "Foundations for the Future''. This, supposedly, was the year of delivery. In that the "Wellbeing Budget'' only goes so far. Mr Robertson has, overall, stayed true to his view that fiscal discipline is something ministers owe to future generations.
The Government, as when it rejected capital gains tax recommendations, has played it safe. That is the correct strategy for Labour if it wants to remain the Government for at least one more term. It is the right balance if it is to steadily change budget priorities in what Ms Ardern has called "pragmatic idealism''.
