You don’t need to observe politics for too long before realising that hypocrisy is the natural scent of the politics.

It is a stench that pervades much of what is said and policy that is enacted. There are two particular types – the hypocrisy where politicians pretend they care about something and then do nothing, and the one where they pretend to think something and do the opposite.

We have seen it this week with former foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop suddenly discovering climate change.

She told Guardian Australia “that I’ve always been of the view that Australia, as a leading industrialised and developed nation, with one of the best standards of living in the world, needs to be a leader in the international response to climate change”.

The nation as one responded with a resounding, “Seriously, what?”

Name one instance during her time as foreign minister or even just as a member of the Howard or Abbott-Turnbull governments where she ever proffered such a view or supported such a policy position.

Her very last mention of “climate change” in parliament came in 2017 when she lovingly talked up “high efficiency, low emissions” coal plants and decried in loud tones the ALP’s “obsession with a 50% renewable energy target” which she said was “destroying business confidence in South Australia, threatening jobs and threatening industries”.

Gotta love that leadership.

Or perhaps she was leading in 2015 when she told parliament: “I think it is important not to engage in hyperbole when one is talking about climate change. I remember in 2011 when the deputy leader [Tanya Plibersek] tried to scare the senior citizens on the Central Coast by saying that they were going to be subject to the ravages of climate change.”

Or maybe she suggested being a “leader in the international response” was what she was doing when she told parliament that the government’s 26% to 28% target of emissions cuts, “is a responsible contribution” and that “what is not responsible is Labor’s endorsement of a carbon reduction target of up to 60% on 2000 levels by 2030”.

Do nothing but say you care about doing lots.

The other hypocrisy was writ large across the LNP this week with regards to the budget surplus.

Gone is the boasting of a surplus already delivered, now the Treasurer says “well the surplus has never been an end in itself” and “delivering a surplus has not been our priority in the face of these crises” and “our focus is on is not necessarily delivering the surplus”.

Last year, when David Speers questioned Frydenberg about the government’s boast of delivering a surplus that had actually yet to happen, Speers suggested “there might be a collapse in China, there might be another terrible drought … things can happen that could prevent you actually achieving this”.

The treasurer responded by arguing: “Well this is not a wafer thin surplus. This is a very significant surplus.”

Don’t expect to hear such arguments being made now.

Now the talk is of things outside the control of the government – indeed they will use all the arguments they criticised the ALP for making when the GFC smashed the economy and the budget.

Hypocrisy? Yep.

But here’s the thing – we actually want them to be hypocrites, it is better for the nation if they are – so long as it is this brand of hypocrisy.

The absolute worst thing the government could do right now is desperately try to deliver a surplus.

Forget stories such as those that appeared on the front page of the Australian this week about new taxes – nothing on the revenue side will help the government now because any new taxes will only come into effect next financial year at the earliest.

But they can stop spending right now.

The only reason the government has been able to project a surplus is because they project that they will be awash with tax revenue.

The government was not projecting a budget surplus because of big austerity campaigns, but because of factors outside their control that looked set to deliver a massive increase in tax.

In the face of less than expected revenue, the only way to still deliver a surplus is to cut government spending – but that would further reduce economic activity and thus further reduce revenue, which would necessitate further cuts.

The smart thing to do is to accept a budget deficit, because that will help keep the economy afloat.

Will the government attempt to sell such a move with hypocritical statements? For sure. But that is better than the alternative.

And so it is with climate change.

Members of the LNP have spent more than a decade warning about not getting ahead of the rest of the world, or that a carbon price is actually a tax, or that we need to think more about adaptation than lowering emissions, or that electric cars will kill weekends or that renewable energy will deliver blackouts.

It would be a measure of gross hypocrisy for them now to start shouting about the need to do more on emissions, that we need to lead the world and we need to put a price on carbon and to stop faffing about.

The LNP account for around 99% of everyone in Australian politics who is to blame for the lost decade of climate change policy inaction.

Were they to turn around now and argue there is no time to waste, we would be able to fill the MCG with print outs of transcripts that demonstrate their hypocrisy.

And yet, bring it on.

Because while hypocrisy should be addressed, I would much prefer the hypocrisy of a Liberal party pretending that their past actions did not contradict their new outlook on climate change than the current version we have of the LNP saying we need to do something but then purposefully and perpetually doing the opposite.

The hypocrisy of their position on the budget surplus looks to have been forced on them. With luck all sides may use this as a moment to remember that it is actually true that “the surplus has never been an end in itself”.

And on climate change we can only hope the LNP discover a new fragrance of hypocrisy.

Yes it would be best if they were to admit their errors, and apologise for the past decade of waste that has cost us all so greatly.

But if they start to act on reducing emissions and actually do attempt to lead the world, then I’ll take the emissions cuts and live with the hypocrisy.