Well he must be, given the big turnaround in support for small business in last week’s budget.

Having wound back Labor’s Instant Asset Write-Off policy last year, Mr Hockey made the reversal of this decision the centrepiece of the 2015-16 budget.

In October last year, Labor Lines focused on the Instant Asset Write-Off and how the Government’s approach was hurting small business. We’re glad Mr Hockey noticed.

So, yes, it is pleasing to see a good Labor policy back. And the increased limit of $20,000 is significant – even if a lower limit of $10,000 or Labor’s limit of $6,500 would arguably have been enough. Also, the two-year time limit is a shame – it would be much better for certainty and consistency for the policy to be ongoing.

But all things considered, this is a welcome development and I commend Mr Hockey for being prepared to bring back a policy that had Labor’s fingerprints all over it.

However, the rest of the budget is getting questioned from a fairness point of view.

The Australian Council for Social Service (ACOSS) has been working constructively with the Government on the reform of social services in the interests of achieving better outcomes for the poor and disadvantaged. So, when ACOSS responds to the budget, we all should listen.

ACOSS’s analysis shows that the combined effect of retained 2014 savings measures and new cuts sees the 2015 Budget strip an estimated $15 billion over four years from basic services and supports, including new cuts to child dental and community health programs.

ACOSS CEO, Cassandra Goldie, puts it well: "The retention of most of the 2014 budget cuts and lack of action to strengthen public revenue tips the scale on the negative side of the fairness ledger as it effectively means that the most disadvantaged and struggling individuals and families in our community are being asked to shoulder the responsibility for restoring the Budget".

Separately, analysis from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) shows how the government's budget consolidation - for the second year in a row - is being made at the expense of the less well-off.

It found “the poorest 20 per cent of households with children will lose up to 7.1 per cent of their total disposable income over the next four years, after all budget measures are taken into account”.

By contrast, “households with children in the top 20 per cent will see their disposable incomes increase slightly, by 0.2 per cent, by the end of 2018/19”.

Last year it was a budget of broken promises. This year it is the budget of mixed messages. But the consistent missing ingredient – according to the independent experts - is fairness.