That’s two strikes now for the newly appointed assistant treasurer, who is increasingly looking incompetent for the role.

Strike one came when O’Dwyer claimed that Labor’s proposed negative gearing policy would increase house prices – even though Malcolm Turnbull had said the exact opposite over a week earlier. (NB: for the reasons I have already given here, it impossible to predict what Labor’s negative gearing policy would result in. Of course, that hasn’t stopped every politician and ‘expert’ claiming that they can with hilariously varying results like this).

Strike two came last week with O’Dwyer’s claim that tax concessions are a ‘gift’ from the government:

Just in case you have missed the feeling of higher taxes coming down the pike, take last week’s comment from Assistant Treasurer, Kelly O’Dwyer:

No one has a right to a super tax concession. It is a gift that the government should only provide when it makes sense.

Yes, be afraid. It’s the Canberra beltway talking. Everything belongs to the government and anything that the ordinary punter is allowed to keep is a gift.

Just think about it: the top marginal tax rate is not 60 per cent. The current rate of 49 per cent, including the Medicare Levy, is a gift that the government should only provide when it makes sense.

This is what happens when people are divorced from their money in the way we have been through the PAYE income tax system – you earn it, but never see it. Therefore, it was never yours to begin with.

(I’ll give you a minute to finish cleaning up your vomit).

And we’re back. Of course, O’Dwyer is not the first to think along these totalitarian lines:

Labor health spokeswoman Catherine King said: “Is healthcare important in this country? Yes it is. Who pays for it? We think it is perfectly possible … for the government to continue to contribute alongside our taxpayers as they do both through the Medicare levy, Medicare levy surcharge and of course through general taxation to continue to have a sustainable Medicare system.”

At first, I was a surprised that O’Dwyer could say such unintelligent things – given that she used to be a corporate lawyer at Freehills and an ‘executive’ at the National Australia Bank. However, on closer inspection, she appears to be your garden variety politician who has avoided getting her hands dirty with real work experience.

If you go to her Wikipedia page, or her website bio, you will notice the following:

• It does not say when she graduated from law school or when she started and finished at Freehills. She simply started working as an ‘advisor’ to Peter Costello from 2004 to 2007. Given that O’Dwyer was born in March 1977, the earliest she could have been admitted as a lawyer would have been in 2001 – giving her a maximum of 2.5 to 3 years of experience. Of course, it could be less than this too.

• Similarly, it also does not say how long she worked at the NAB for or what her job title actually was. It simply says that she started ‘after the 2007 Federal Election’ (which was in November 2007 by the way) before gaining pre-selection for the Federal seat of Higgins in September 2009. So, all up, somewhere around 2 to 3 years.

Now why wouldn’t O’Dwyer proudly tell us how long she worked at Freehills and the NAB for and what her job titles were?

In any event, at best, O’Dwyer has as many years experience in the real world as you can count on one hand – which is probably commensurate with the intelligence levels she has displayed in the above gaffs.

Is this really the best talent we have in Australia for the role of assistant treasurer?

NOTE: I have emailed Kelly O’Dwyer to ask when she graduated from law school and started working at Freehills. Let’s see if I get a response…