O’Dwyer Keeps Delivering

What more does Kelly O’Dwyer need to do to show that she’s clearly not qualified for the role of federal government minister?

This is her complete disaster of an interview the other day regarding the banking royal Commission,

This was TMR smelling something very fishy when it came to O’Dwyer two years ago:

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…

[TMR: spoiler alert – no response ever came. Now why would that be?]

You tell me: what has she learned and how has she improved since being appointed as assistant treasurer (i.e. Minister for Revenue and Financial Services)?

Can anyone be surprised with the results?

How this kind of guff was actually published about her in Lawyer’s Weekly is simply beyond me.

O’Dwyer is the first woman in Liberal party history to be pre-selected for a safe seat in Melbourne and beat millionaire and commercial lawyer Andrew Abercrombie for the chance to stand for election.

As a former staffer for Costello and a National Australia Bank executive, 32-year-old O’Dwyer’s association with the Liberal Party dates back to 1995 when she worked as a part-time electoral officer for the Howard government’s health minister, Michael Wooldridge.

Chairman of Freehills Robert Nicholson backed O’Dwyer, and in a reference said: “She is a woman of uncommon intellect, skill, energy and integrity, with the capacity to make a long-term contribution in public service,” reported The Age.

How could anybody say this with a straight face about someone that’s had less than three years of experience? Then again, I suppose it’s all a matter of how you interpret the word ‘uncommon’ in this context.

Contrary to what O’Dwyer’s bio says, she did not ‘practise’ corporate law at Freehills: she bumbled around as a junior with no effing idea whatsoever while waiting (hoping in her case it would appear) for some pennies to drop. Just like EVERY junior lawyer does. The only problem for O’Dwyer is that she stopped well before the pennies dropped – before repeating the trick in a different line of ‘work’ at the NAB. And now our country has to suffer the results.

A clear case of the Peter Principle in action (on steroids in this case).

The time is well overdue for certain ministerial positions to have minimum qualification requirements. Nobody should be able to have a finance/treasury portfolio or be our nation’s Attorney-General without at least 10 years of relevant industry experience. While this wouldn’t have prevented things like George Brandis, it would have spared us from the Wayne Swan Experience.

 

 

This entry was posted in Federal Politics, Financial Services, Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to O’Dwyer Keeps Delivering

  1. Dr Fred Lenin

    It’s time our polliemuppets fools realised that their Rewarding “careers”in politics are “a Gift of the Voters”, ,and that they can be consigned to the rubbish heap of history at any election if they annoy the voters enough . Another thing employment by the government is a “ Gift of the Voters” not a right . The Voters can force polliemuppets to downsize government whenever the mood swings against big government . And so a message to these priveleged people you are only there as long as we want you there you can be made redundant tomorrow and be little missed.

  2. H B Bear

    Beats me. Why would the Chairman of Freehills want one of his own on the red leather in Canberra? I can’t think of a single reason why.

  3. Just because she was a pencil-pusher for Costello does not mean that she has got brains.But then again, Malcolm would hitch anyone to his wagon who can remind him every day how beautiful he is. Fewer brains – less potential challenge!

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    O’Dwyer’s claim that tax concessions are a ‘gift’ from the government

    I had the strong impression this week that ScoMo not raising the Medicare levy was regarded as a ‘gift’ to taxpayers.

    My message to Morrison and Turnbull: saying you aren’t going to tax us after all isn’t a great reason for us to vote for you.

  5. I once suggested to a Victorian minister that it was in fact the department head who called the shots not the minister. He told me the story of when he became a minister for transport and the first morning in office the department head approached him and said ” this is the total budget in size and all you have to play with is a very small amount the rest is untouchable”. The same person went on to hold many ministerial position’s in government. Yes ministers can make gaffs and not be on the same page as others at times but in the main they really are just a mouthpiece for the public service swamp and its wants but never the publics. Don’t vote for any of them you just encourage them.

  6. Frydemburgers makes O’ Dwyer look like a genius😀

  7. Robber Baron

    Marcus, she has every qualification and necessary experience to rise to the top…she has a vagina.

  8. candy

    Marcus, she has every qualification and necessary experience to rise to the top…she has a vagina.

    That may be so but there is something untrustworthy about her, which overcomes even the “female” right to rise to the top simple because they are female.
    Same for Michaela Cash, Julie Bishop, Tanya Plibersek. Something there you can’t trust, flimsy.

    Weirdly enough Penny Wong seems the most likeable and dependable, kind of solid personality, of the ladies in Parliament.

  9. Infidel Tiger

    In a meritocracy O’dwyer would be a roundabout or bollard.

  10. Infidel Tiger

    Weirdly enough Penny Wong seems the most likeable and dependable, kind of solid personality, of the ladies in Parliament.

    Piss off.

  11. JC

    Look, her performance wasn’t great in the interview and that’s understating it. However, if Cassidy had tried those interview tactics with a reasonable dude, the worthless microbe would have walked out with two shiners and a couple of broken teeth.

  12. candy

    Piss off.

    Your online demeanour has turned nasty these days, IT.

  13. candy

    Look, her performance wasn’t great in the interview and that’s understating it.

    She’s just like most of the Libs, they could just as easily represent the Labor Party. It’s policy by policy and which gets the most favourable treatment in the media; if it doesn’t, discard and do the reverse.

  14. zyconoclast

    Don’t forget she was a Peter Costello staffer and his preferred choice to replace him.

    Even if we assume Peter Costello was a good Treasurer, the fact that he employed her and did all he could to get her pre-selected in a safe seat shows a major character flaw.

  15. Marcus

    Contrary to what O’Dwyer’s bio says, she did not ‘practise’ corporate law at Freehills: she bumbled around as a junior with no effing idea whatsoever while waiting (hoping in her case it would appear) for some pennies to drop. Just like EVERY junior lawyer does. The only problem for O’Dwyer is that she stopped well before the pennies dropped – before repeating the trick in a different line of ‘work’ at the NAB. And now our country has to suffer the results.

    Thank you. I was wondering what she did at NAB – Wikipedia just says she was an “executive.”

    Given how many Liberal parliamentarians go from being political staffers to bank boards or “consulting” gigs, they may as well just wind up employed by The Red-Headed League for all they seem to learn.

  16. Rockdoctor

    Seems to be a trend in this Government, Payne & Pyne wrecking Defence, Frydenberg making a meal of energy, Bishop swanning with the A list ignoring troublesome local backyard with Thai Junta suspending democracy further & further, accelerating Islamisation in Aceh/Malaysia & increasing Chinese encroachment into our sphere of influence in Pacific among some, Brandis’s very mediocre term as AG, Cash’s constant trip ups in Jobs & Innovation, need I go on?

    Dutton seems to be the only performer & he is on a knife edge due to boundary changes. If they were a sick dog they would have been taken into the back paddock & put out of their misery already.

  17. stackja

    Whitlam decided staffers were better than career public servants. Public servants advised against loans. Whitlam ‘knew better’. The rest is history.

  18. stackja

    All decisions ultimately are made by MT.

  19. yarpos

    Would it be too much to ask for someone with some Engineering credentials to run Energy?

    We have seen what a country run by lawyers and union officials looks like, its time for another approach.

  20. Squirrel

    I sometimes wonder whether politicians who are parents of young children forget themselves when they are speaking, in public, to adults – whatever we might say about Insiders, it’s probably fair to assume that most of the people who bother to watch that show don’t need to be spoken to as if they are slow-witted juveniles.

  21. Leigh Lowe

    Chairman of Freehills Robert Nicholson backed O’Dwyer, and in a reference said: “She is a woman of uncommon intellect, skill, energy and integrity …

    “Uncommon” could be taken to mean “at either end of the bell curve”.
    .

    …with the capacity to make a long-term contribution in public service,” reported The Age.

    That is, “she is fucking useless in the private sector”.

  22. David Brewer

    Sorry but I am not sure there is anything to see here.

    O’Dwyer is a dope on economics. But so are most Liberals, including the Treasurer. She assumes the government is “giving” money away when it reduces or fails to increase taxes. Yawn – they all do. Her “complete disaster of an interview” is because she opposed a banking Royal Commission – but how many Cats were in favour of one when Short’un suggested it?

    As for only having a job because she is a woman – I agree the bar is lower because of positive discrimination, but whether that means she has only got where she is by sleeping with someone seems pure speculation.

    Finally, as for her thin resumé, that would apply to practically every politician in Parliament. The place is crawling with career politicians who have been doing little else since they were at university.

  23. Entropy

    Finally, as for her thin resumé, that would apply to practically every politician in Parliament. The place is crawling with career politicians who have been doing little else since they were at university.

    Exactly. A minimum requirement would kill this sort of useless shit off. Say 45 y.o. Make them have a career first. And while we are at it reduce their salaries to average earnings. Make representing their electorate a vocation, for those that have already been successful. not a lucrative career opportunity.

  24. Boambee John

    “stackja
    #2697835, posted on April 28, 2018 at 3:49 pm
    All decisions ultimately are made by MT.”

    No, by LT.

  25. vagabond

    Be careful what you wish for. An engineering qualification is not necessarily what it once was – I’m sure the leftist’s long march through the institutions has not missed engineering schools. Our esteemed Chief Scientist has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and I don’t think many who have more realistic experience in the field would agree with his pronouncements.

  26. 3d1k

    I’ve have written elsewhere (months to years ago) of O’Dwyer’s incompetence. In addition, she appears to have suffered greatly from Baby Brain extended well beyond the third trimester.

  27. 3d1k

    *** Assume “delivering”was politely mischievous 😏

  28. max

    I wonder if it’s natural or acquired gormlessness from dear leader.

    Notice how in the follow up he cut her loose.

    If they ever make a Carry On movie of all this Trumble should be played by a resurrected Terry Thomas twirling his moustache and with an evil cackle.

  29. pbw

    She is extraordinarily well-qualified to be a Minister in Turnbull’s government: she’s a woman. And your crude, patriarchal, “reasoned,” criticism just shows how important it is to have her there.

  30. JohnA

    Clint #2697824, posted on April 28, 2018, at 3:23 pm

    1. Negative gearing needs to be abolished

    No, Clint, “negative gearing” is a spiv marketing term for the inter-connected operation of various parts of our tax laws.
    The first part states that tax is levied on taxable income.

    The second part states that taxable income is the net difference between gross income and eligible deductions.

    The third part states that eligible deductions include expenses incurred in order to gain income.

    If you wish to eliminate “negative gearing” (which is merely the excess of eligible expenses over relevant income within a certain segment of a person’s overall financial affairs in a year) you will have to undermine the third part – but only under certain special conditions.

    You are thus creating a bigger problem and, in the process, generating more income for lawyers and tax accountants.

  31. J.H.

    How about we just get rid of the Tax Pool altogether…. I know a great many people love to swim in it, but the cost of keeping it filled has long passed any value for money that we Tax slaves may have originally got from a political class of professional Tax waders as they back stroke effortlessly through our money.

    Just a thought. 😉

  32. None

    Never ever ever ever vote for a staffer ever.

  33. Crossie

    Chairman of Freehills Robert Nicholson backed O’Dwyer, and in a reference said: “She is a woman of uncommon intellect, skill, energy and integrity, with the capacity to make a long-term contribution in public service,” reported The Age.

    Isn’t that the sort of reference you write when you want to get rid of a non-performing drone?

    Why specify public service? Because productive contribution in the for-profit sector is beyond her?

  34. Crossie

    None
    #2698137, posted on April 29, 2018 at 1:46 am
    Never ever ever ever vote for a staffer ever.

    Or spouse or significant or casual other of a politician. It means they have no connections outside the political bubble, no insight into the real world.

  35. Wal of Ipswich

    She’s occupying prime electoral real estate and should resign to “spend more time with her family” so the Liberals can parachute a star candidate onto the front bench.

    Failing the resurrection of Costello, can Peta Credlin buy or rent a flat in the vicinity?

  36. John Constantine

    Their Kelly proves that our Diversity is the only Strength we have left.

    If this is failing, obviously we must unswervingly become More Diverse, full throttle.

  37. John Constantine

    A good look at our political prc class, their president-mayor turnbull-snows and their shorten looting cartel proves beyond doubt that Australias Medici patron class and the crony socialist trough feeders waxing fat from them can be described only thus:

    Big Crony Australia, our Affluent are our Effluent.

  38. Tel

    If you wish to eliminate “negative gearing” (which is merely the excess of eligible expenses over relevant income within a certain segment of a person’s overall financial affairs in a year) you will have to undermine the third part – but only under certain special conditions.

    The point is to specifically itemize each expense against the income generated by that particular expense. So if you own a rental property with a hefty mortgage you might for the first five years or so spend more in expenses (especially mortgage payments) than what you earn from that property but you cover the difference with income from something else. After the slow startup, the property starts paying for itself and moves to positive gearing. They want to prevent one type of income from cross-subsidizing another type of expense.

    Let’s see how this works in business. Suppose a product is selling well in New South Wales, but now the business wants to startup a new branch in Queensland but perhaps that new venture makes a loss for the first five years while being supported by good profits in New South Wales. Should the business be forced to use after tax profits for investment in the new branch? Normally the answer is no, but in theory tax could be imposed on anything.

    Since the whole concept of income tax is pretty stupid to begin with, there’s no “correct” answer here, it’s just the grabbity grab game, get whatever you can grab hold of.

  39. Percy Porcelain

    with the capacity to make a long-term contribution in public service

    LOL. Talk about being damned with faint praise.

  40. Entropy

    Perhaps the answer is if you establish a business for the purpose of capital gain rather than production, the capital gain should not be treated any different to other income streams.
    Rather than stuffing up business expense rules, just spread the real capital gain over the period of ownership and adjust historic tax liabilities to take account of the gain. Current CGT is too complex.
    The trick is identifying whether or not an investment is designed to make its money from capital gain or not. I can see where this proposal might be a problem. Rural land for example, does not reflect its earning capacity from rural activity, but has a substantial slab of expected future capital gain built in. There would be considerable adjustment pain.

  41. Entropy

    Is she up to three parliamentary terms yet? If so, please retire. She doesn’t need to work anymore.

  42. MichelLasouris

    No one with the smallest modicum of intellect, would endorse O’ Dwyer’s ineptitude as a politician; even a lowly back bencher. I can’t believe she achieved her success by using her femininity; she has none. Nobody could possibly fancy that! Indeed she is such a moron, she has set back the justifiable cause for women in positions of influence, by decades. Withdraw and regroup ladies, and once again advance

  43. MichelLasouris

    And while I’m at it, does everybody note the number of Finance Industry woman who have fallen foul of the Royal Commission? Methinks the Peter Principle, aided by Positive Discrimination with a dash of good old sexual favour, is hard at work here.

  44. Motelier

    Kelly O’Dwyer is unwittingly preparing the electorate for a tax revolt.

    I am pretty sure taxpayers outside of the PAYE system are aware of what is happening, and, the government is aware so they are talking about was to restrict the cash economy.

    The only dills not aware are the poor plebs on the PAYE treadmill.

    Ever noticed how at tax time the talk always is about how much a PAYE pleb gets back in a refund?

    Boiled frog syndrome.

  45. egg_

    Did Bitchops chime in with “Brilliant idea!”?

    The token wymminses Peter principle at play?

  46. David Brewer

    Tel, are you sure about this argument?:

    After the slow startup, the property starts paying for itself and moves to positive gearing. They want to prevent one type of income from cross-subsidizing another type of expense.

    I would have thought the trick with negative gearing is never to move to positive gearing. Use it to reduce your income tax for as long as possible, then sell the property. Only half your capital gain will be taxed, the other half is yours, tax free. The income tax you have saved in the meantime is not taken into account.

  47. MichelLasouris

    Ahhhh! Someone is reading/listening. Catherine Brenner , ex chair of AMP has gone. Once again the policy employing the Peter Principle has been applied and found wanting. This woman has really cruelled the aspiration of so many capable women trying to break through the ‘glass ” ceiling to higher promotion. It’s a shame really, but also we must remember that relatively few women have achieved the necessary practical experience to take on the really influential positions. It’s a self fulfilling prophesy in that until properly experienced women gain higher positions, we are left with incompetence of the pretenders. One more thing. I can’t think of any men who have achieved influential positions by employing masculine “wiles” which cannot be said of woman:- not in the foreseeable future anyway. This route (root?) to high office is so difficult to prove, when set against a record of solid business results……..

Comments are closed.