Trump...how's this work now?

I think people either deliberately or accidently forget WHY Donald Trump got elected. 
People were fed up with the Political Class & the Bureaucracy. Those two animals are the real threat to the West & in this case a threat to the USA.
In fact those two groups that work for the most part very closely together are what Trump & others called the SWAMP, that needed to be drained.

Those that were fed up with Political Elites were the ones Hillary from the Political Class labeled the "Deplorables" - Having said that, its looking more and more likely that there were Political Class/Bureaucratic Elite sympathisers in both major parties 

Trump was everything the USA needed.
Trump wasn't from the Bureaucracy 
Trump wasn't from the Political Class
Trump was a definite disruptor.

He wasn't doing it for the money, he has plenty & he donated his salary to charities...in effect he worked as President for free and may have even used his own plane until Security said he couldn't.
He did Move the US Embassy to Jeruselum as his 5 predecessors promised to.
He did raise the Hispanic & African American employment rates to unprecedented levels
He oversaw Middle Peace advances, there are now direct flights from Israel to UAE
He even visited North Korea, first leader from the West.

Yes in many ways he was portrayed as a clunky cartoon character of a President but he was able to cut through "the swamp", the do nothing behemoth made up of the Political Class & The Bureacratic Elite. Sadly it remains very likely that many of these advances wouldn't have happened without a complete outsider coming in and putting the foot down on non performers.
He was the perfect outsider, who came in to change things. Some not so good, but much good was profited for everyday citizens.

Odd he might be impeached for inciting criminals fools invading the Capital building with only days left of his tenure. 
For the record, all those who stormed the building, fought and injured law enforcement need to be identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law can allow.

Where to now? Well unity should follow but I think it's pretty hard to expect that will happen anytime soon. There is a definite presence of extremists in both the Democrats & Republicans. There is a definite pathway of dissent and confrontation coming. Hopefully it isn't violent.

With Democrats holding the Presidency and power in the Congress they will move forward whatever they want to a point. Now its clear many know "Never let a good crisis go to waste" so they may continue to demonise the conservatives whilst raising taxes and in the case of the Green New Deal real darker foundations. What's dark?
Salaries for those who cannot and "do not want to work".
Including illegal aliens. Kid you not.
Free healthcare for all, including illegal aliens.
All illegal aliens be given a visa.

So if they stick with that, you can get into the US illegally, then stay legally, get free healthcare & a living wage without working.

Then there's other chance these things will be wound back and the Biden term won't be quite so bad. 
They did though make anti NRA noises & Biden says he plans to take firearms away. That's quite a flashpoint.

Now some commentators are saying 2 sitting elected members need to go on a no fly list for terrorists.
Its going nuts & a culture of division & hate is being given steroids.

My guess, China will rise, America will suffer and prepare for a drop in the American Dollar in the next 12 months.

It's a sad & divisive time and it could get worse. 
All during a COVID "pandemic"

Albany's Race for a New MP

 Peter Watson MLA is stepping down at the next election in March 2021. It's going to be a stange contest with several people well credentialed with Community Involvement. The probable 3 front runners are Delma Baesjou (Nationals), Scott Leary (Liberals) and Rebecca Stephens (Labor). 

Scott Leary's chances are said to be improved by the rise of Zak Kirkup as party leader but whilst that's possible Liza Harvey was a good leader & in any case, she's staying on and is backing Zak Kirkup by all accounts. Both Liza & Zak visited Albany as Party Leaders. Scott has had a long history of community involvement in business & sport as well as the local TAFE,

Delma Baesjou is in a similar spot but her party's leader Mia Davies had visited Albany more times in the last 18 months than both Liberal & Labor leaders combined so they are serious on elevating Albany. Their party's State Conference in Oct 2020 was in Albany & add onto that Delma was the successful candidate in a political first for WA "Community Pre-Selection" so Delma really is a political candidate put forward by the community & voted in by the community...not a Perth based pre-selection committee and she's had a long linkage with local community groups, developers and community groups.

Rebecca Stephens also has a good history with local community groups and has run a local small business as well as sitting councillor on the City of Albany. She's going to have trouble building upon Peter Watson's legacy because for the last 4 years he's been Speaker of the Hourse so he hasn't built much at all. As Speaker he cannot have any part of cabinet decisions, has no part in Government business, cannot represent & speak up for Albany on the floor of the Parliament so Rebecca is starting off on a blank slate just like the other candidates.

She also has a few other barriers that only a well funded campaign can over come. In an ABC Radio interview she was asked about Deregulated Trading Hours and she said "No comment" which was a most curious reply. When further pushed she explained she would have to see what the electorate felt about it. Now this is curious because as a City Councillor she voted against it. Either she knows what the community wants or she doesn't or she voted without knowing what Albany wants or doesn't.
It's actually what is best for Albany regardless of what some do or don't want.

There's also some other differences that only an expensive campaign with lots of visits from the Premier can over come.

If Rebecca wins you can guarantee the Labor Party will celebrate her as the first woman to represent Albany in Parliament. It's odd because WA Labor has a stance, according to Simone McGurk MLA the Labor Minister for Women's Interests that a woman is someone who is a woman or lives as a woman. In other words anyone of any gender. Unless they can check to confirm all previous men lived & identified as men not women they have a funny claim to make. If you're a woman, your "interests" involve allowing anyone to be a woman. Ironically by elevating women's interests as they do, they're de-womaning the gender completely.

Rebecca has several other obstacles. She cannot cross the floor and vote on a matter in the best interests of the Albany community. If she does, she will be expelled fromt he party. This isn't such a problem for the Nationals & Liberal Candidates. Nationals MPs have put their electorate first & crossed the floor and indeed the Nationals have an ex-Liberal MP & an ex-Labor MP in their parliamentary ranks, but very renouned for putting their electorate first and they can cross the floor now.

Rebecca on that front is required to be a Labor representative in the electorate, not an electorate representative in her party, the government or the floor of the house. Its very unfair and will restrict Rebecca from the best results Albany needs to move forward.

Then there's yet another problem that only an expensive campaign can gloss over or distract from, Labor's close affinity with the Chinese Government & the prerential treatment for WA billionaires when it came to COVID quarantining. In amongst this, Labor has not been very regional friendly. 

Labor's plan to abolish the School of the Air without any stakeholder consultation, indeed even their own far north MPs only learned about it via the press. Labor's plan to shut Moora Residential College because it wasn't worth the money & under used (?)...federal money was sourced and it's been kept open, renovated and now fully booked.

There was also the additional problem that in their first budget Mark McGowan's Labor Party pent more money in 2 years on Rockingham Basketball than 2 years of drug rehab in Albany. You won't remember Peter Watson raising this in Parliament or crossing the floor over it. He represents Labor in Albany so golden silence.

Labor also said they would not bring in a Gold Tax, soon as they were elected Mark McGowan went back on his pre election committment & tried to introduce one...TWICE. Rebecca will need to rely on an expensive campaign & the old "that was before my time and I'm not familiar with Kalgoorlie". Well she'll have to vote on many things outside Albany & had that passed, Kalgoorlie would ahve gone into a serious economic slump and the entire drilling & exploration sector would have closed.

Royalties for Regions...many hundreds of projects, some were duds but now, its been skinned & gutted and used to pay for normal items within general expenditure and basically cost shifted a billion dollars a year from the regions to Perth. 
2.6 million square kilometres outside the Perth/Mandurah/Metro Area & R4R was to ensure a small portion of royalties was quarantined into the regions. The programme is effectively dead and you probably shouldn't be surprised.

As people starte getting the picture, expect the Labor money poured into the Albany Campaign to increase greatly as rural people including those like us in a rural city have been short changed badly.

Would you vote for a Democratic Communist Party?

Would you vote for a Democratic Fascist Party?

Would you vote for a Democratic Dictatorship Party?

Would you vote for a Democratic Khmer Rouge Party?

Assuming you would answer no to all 4 questions, ask yourself why on earth would you vote for a Democratic Socialist Party? That is what Labor is, the ALP Constitution says so in black & white.

So my expectation for the State Election 2021 in the seat of Albany...expect a massive campaign from Labor, a very costly one the other parties can't match to try & white wash over the facts you'll get & the poor results we've had. Expect the Premier & ministers to jump on the Lear Jet WA used to hire but then bought and head to Albany. They've had plenty of campaign flights Perth to Albany to Denmark (or Manjimup) then back to Perth. Whirlwind face dropping.

Drugs, hard damaging drugs...possible approach?

 Background, I'm no expert on drugs or addiction but there is a general push for drugs to no longer be seen as a criminal matter but as a health matter. That sets up 2 sides, the yes, the no but there's also another.

Both.

There's some pushes to decriminalise illicit drugs and drop it all fairly & squarely within the health realm which I'd politely say isn't coping with it now.

I knew a couple with kids and small business, successful small business. They smoked a bit of dope and when that happened I would go home, it increased and we drifted apart. What I didn't know was they were also beginning to use Methamphetamine, in fact it turns out they were high functioning addicts for a number of years before finally the unavoidable decline began. The decline was horrible to say the least. The husband was attacked and went to hospital several times. It ended up with a lost business, they lost their house and all assets, a divorce followed, then came prostitution, violence against police and medical staff, theft from family & strangers. It's ruined their lives, their parents lives, their children's lives. It is an utter shameful mess and I can only say I'm glad I wasn't close by to watch it because I would've been lost as to what to do to help.

In the end one of them is on the road to recovery health wise after a jail stint but there is no way to repair the damage that's been done.

Now if its solely a health matter, I need to see how that looks on paper because at the time when an intervention by medical professionals might, stress might have helped I for one thought they were just smoking dope & had no idea they were on hard drugs.

Crime, it isn't a sole answer either but somehow we have a problem because if we as a society were able to cut supply tomorrow, then drugs would be in short supply and addicts would jump over to another type of drug to fill the gap & the demand for the missing drug rises, there's more importation/production incentive.

I think there is no one answer, I think society needs a dozen keys to this puzzle. One of them might be doubling the penalties with each repeat offence. Get a 50% reduction in sentence for helping to prosecute & convict the next person up the line BUT the person convicted must go into a rehabilitation programme, regular drug testing and be found clean at the end of it. to get their reduction.

There has to be a serious penalty joined with a serious incentive to get clean and point the finger at the next person up the line. Can't have just a harsher penalty, there has to be a genuine incentive offer with set treatment.

Hopefully the random drug testing that happens ocaasionally with RBT becomes common place, test for one, test for the other.  
No, its probably correct that penalties will not solve the problem. we see that in Asian countries that have the death penalty for drug offences and the Phillipines where it's alleged drug dealers and addicts have been gunned down as well clamped down harshly by authorities. Drugs remain no matter what becuase I think the addictive nature of humans is never going away and the lure of big money still draws people in despite the incredibly high risk and brutal penalty.

But I think taking people out of the game by penalties & rehab on a larger scale is one of the keys to the puzzle not in eliminating drugs but at least reducing the number of addicts.

I don't know if there's the political will and the other trouble is the meth epidemic is only starting to become readily apparent to those outside the realm of these drugs. When it gets to this point, we've lost a big chunk of a generation and we need to move very rapidly & decisively to curb the damage for younger ones still not thinking of dabbling.

I think the entertainment industry has a big hand to play in demonising drugs but empathising with addicts. The Hollywood effect of glorifying drugs or mocking the dangers started before Cheech & Chong.

And yes, I don't think a shaded tent prison in the desert is such a bad idea either

The Left & the Right of the Political Spectrum

 For years we've heard of the Left vs the Right on the political Spectrum and even the Left, Centre and Right within each Party. The latest term to front up is "Sensible Centre" or "Centrist" which everyone seemed to claim for a while but it lost steam in Australia. Well it seemed to when the Independent MPs prior to the last Federal election claimed to be Centrists, Dr Phelps et al & running for election Zali Steggals. They weren't any compromise between Left & Right, they weren't any middle ground. They were trying to create a unique marketing brand whilst remaining leftists. It largely flopped.

The sort of traditional view of the political spectrum is somewhere like the following linear idea.

That's kinda roughly the current view of what the traditional political spectrum is. The Conservatives on the right of whatever the real dead centre is, the Progressives (or in America the Liberals) to the left. That may not be very accurate, but among many people thats the current view of what the traditional spectrum is.
Between Conservative & Hard Right there's Alt Right and other groups or ideologies with gradually changes towards the Hard Right. Between Progressives and the Hard Left will be gradual increases in ideology like the Antifa etc until you get Communism.

Its not the only view and some of the other views might be contentious to some, but they do have support and some supporting history on their side. Then there's this...

Now how on earth would this even be an idea that people might even consider being accurate. One reaction is you cannot lump Fascism/Nazis in with Marxist Ideologies like Communism, Socialism. They're thought to be polar opposities, one extreme right, one extreme left. They were enemies during the war & share no common traits.

Well ok, thing is that's the argument, except they do share a lot in common. Communism/Socialism has a Father in Karl Marx. Fascism has a Father in the Italian Philospher Giovanni Gentile who was a close ally of Mussonlini. Here's the thing, do your research on Gentile and his work and it soon becomes apparent he started out a strident Socialist then created Fascism which is an offshoot of Socialism because Gentile himself said Fascism is the ultimate form of Socialism. Both took away individual rights, individual ownership of the means of production, both vested decisions on how the individual lived into the State. Both had the State as the supreme goal, aim and governor but Socialism is based on getting rid of class, fascism is too that but more Nationalistic and expansionist. Both required full totalitarian regimes who were ruthless and prone to killing anyone who stood in their way. 

Hitler and the Nazis regime can never be trivialised nor over looked in their rank brutality that made them rightly considered by any religious or non religious worldview judgement as being totally evil.
Well, Stalin's Communist/Socialist regime actually shared many traits with the Nazis and over time they killed or rather ruthlessly murdered more innocent people. No Communism/Socialism isn't worse, they're both supremely evil by any measure. Nazism was lost & destroyed as a regime at the end of World War 2 and the Russian regime continued on. They were competing with one another and both wanted to crush and take over the other. (Before marching onto Capitlist countries and conquering them)

But don't forget the West opposed Socialism/Communism/Fascism during the War & after. With Nazism gone, we had the Cold War. The West versus "the East" and had the Nazis defeated Stalin, the East would have been Germany and every country it conquered or annexed.

Pick a conservative country during the War...or before or after. It would have fought both totalitarian regimes, it would not have set up gulags or concertration camps in the West.

Now somewhere on that second line graph is the Alt-Right. Now considering the Right is over there on the right, the Alt Right must be to the left of the Conservatives. Why? Because they're not of the right. They are "Alternative right". They're considered far right, but they're regarded as White Supremist Nationalists. They often tend as a group to relate to Nazis & be anti Communists. They're quite correct in being an alternative to the right. They are often over there by the Fascists & Nazis. They are not conservatives. Most religious conservatives consider all people are God's children, racism is wrong. Alt Right is not conservative at all. It like all other hard right are not conservatives and share more in common with the Hard Left.
Even Antifa, Anti Facist are not of the right, their followers are generally of one of the Marxist stripes. Oddly though they are very communist like, some are very racist and prone to violence to get their way like fascists and many communists.

This is probably why we see some sets of Antifa clashing with some sets of Alt-Right...meanwhile Conservatives are not a fan or connected to either & oppose both Antifa & Alt-Right. Both Antifa & Alt-Right oppose the West, capitalism, individual rights & want the State to rule the people, not serve them. Every that is the very opposite of Conservatism.
This is why it sure looks not to be simple linear spectrum, Conservatives & wise Progressives are not really of the left or the right. That linear distinction only applies to seperate those that support authoratarian rule & equal division of assets, money & the State owning the means of production & distributing wealth evenly amongst all.

Yes its very uncomfortable for some who wish to demonise conservatives by creating the illusion that Fascism and Nazism is of the right, but they're not. They're of the right compared only to Communists & Socialists. The Communists are of the left, but only to the left of Nazis & Fascism. For Nazis the clue is in the name "National Socialist" and they were brutal totalistarian regimes...that is not from the conservatives any more than Communism is.
If its in favour of authoratarian rule, loss of individual rights, control of all manner of lifes aspects its the Left/Right alright...but not of & opposed by conservatism & real progressivism.

Now progressives...they're looking to change things for the better, Conservatives looking to conserve things for the better. Having them both in a society is not only admirable, its desireable as long as they don't go to far into removing individual rights, over taxing, over legislating the people and not changing from the goevrnment serving the people to pushing the people to serve the government. Real progressives won't support authoratarian rule, loss of individual rights, private property rights, individuals freedom of speech, worship etc.

Yes, I think the second representation of the political spectrum is more correct than the first.
But the first one whilst being intellectually corrupt, morally bankrupt & unsupported by actual history...yes it will live on. Usually by those that will try to not mention progressives but need to condemn conservatives to help falsely bolster any level of Marxist or Fascist validation.
Desperates being desperate.

Trump or Biden - Disaster or Relief?

 Whatever happens, the sun will come up, the sun will go down. Night & day will go on, its a fair expectation that the sky won't fall but there probably is potential fall out.

The NY Stock market recently hit another record all time high whilst there is no new President. Some have pointed to this meaning that stability in politics leads to stock market confidence and to be fair this is very true but the stockmarket probably wasn't going to crash or dip markedly had either candidate been declared winner already.

Its still late November now & there is still no official, certified result on the 2020 Presidential election is yet. It is clear who the President Of The United States (POTUS) is now. Its Trump & it will be Trump until January 20th regardless of the election result. He remains President in title for life, but he also remains in office until the inaugeration late January 2021.

Trump isn't going to refuse to leave the White House. Some media have been pretty mischievous with this claim. Trump has said he will leave office if the Electoral College usher Biden in & all legal avenues are closed off. So the real fact is, whoever wins is still undecided and Trump is exercising his right to legal avenues as other Presidents before him have. And like or loathe him you cannot blame him, the claims there was no evidence of electoral fraud or irregularity is not correct. The vote counting was flawed and compromised. Enough fraud to steal an election? No one knows just yet but if the process is to be cleaned up then  legal avenues aren't just ok, they're vital.

One thing is for sure, Trump cannot lock himself in the White House if he loses, he won't, he can't. Its likely the US will be guarded against real hard left legislation like the New Green Deal as the Democrats won't control the congress but it will be ugly and Biden as POTUS will need heavy media support to carry him.

Other things...

1) How long would Biden as POTUS last? Would he go full term or would he have to be replaced by Kamala Harris mid term and what would that mean for their country and would their be a rippling effect world wide?

2) Which is more likely to result in rioting, civil unrest, violence? A Trump loss or a Biden loss. Well I'd guess less likelihood or violence if Trump loss. On election night and the day or so after with Biden numbers looking high and a win likely the only people who seemed to defy social distancing and take to the streets were democrat supporters celebrating. No pro Trump people clashed with them, no violence, no looting, no burning of building.

3) Trump is more likely to stand up to China whereas Biden more likely to break bread with the Asian trade aggressor. Both their respective media statements support this.

4) War - This is the big worry, Trump is one of the few POTUS in recent living memory who hasn't started a war overseas. A point lost on the "progressives" and when known, they often reject or hide it. Interesting too, Trump copped flak for the barrier wall with Mexico. He has actually been building it at a faster rate than anyone and yes, Democrats called for it when they were in power too. Trump appears very guilty of doing what he said he would. Then again, he also did move the US Embassy in Israel to their nation's capital Jeruselum. All Trump's predecessors have promised that but not done it. Jeruselum is Israel's capital, it's parliament is based there, their PM's residence is based there. All their main government heads & their offices are based there. Makes sense

5) But then Trump was pillared for children being locked in cages away from their mothers, the illegal aliens crossing the US/Mexico border & yet THAT was brought in under the Obama administration but total silence & fingers on pointed Trumps way. Since then Biden/Harris have said all illegal aliens will get free health care under their reign. They will not be deported, they will be allowed to remain with no criminal charges AND they will be granted citizenship. Now I don't think they can actually get these things passed. It'd be a disaster if they did so I don't think these things will happen. I think these are promises made to get elected, to get votes and people who voted Biden/Harris/Democrat on the basis of these promises are going to be very disappointed. Strangeest of all, the democrats will be forgiven by many of their voters. Its very odd.

6) President Elect - Biden has built himself a large pedestal to fall from. He built this "Office of President Elect" which doesn't actually exist. He started installing people to positions under his administration but officially he's not elected to office yet, he isn't even able to call himself President Elect. He technically hasn't won the election, no one has. There is no certified official result yet. 

Will Biden or Trump be President? Who knows, I don't but I do know the process is still in play, Trump hasn't left the office or preparing to transition because no result has been officially called and he's pursuing legal avenues.

If Trump wins via legal avenues he won't have stolen the election, he will have won it. If he loses the election despite legal efforts then he will have lost it fair & square and the voting fraud whilst shown to be real, wasn't enough for him to retain office.

Whatever happens, happens.
It hasn't happened yet. The fat lady hasn't sung, she's not even stageside. She's still home getting ready to go to the theatre.

Right now the best thing for their country is for leaders in each state & major city with civil disorder, chaos, looting rioting is to come down hard on anyone who is not a peacful protestor.

Trump nor Biden can over come that without over reach.

Industrial Manslaughter Laws Controversy in State Parliament

 It's a funny controversy, Trevor Whittington the WAFarmers CEO & the WAFarmers President Ryhs Turton gave a bit of a kicking to the WA Nats for voting with the Greens and the Labor Party. To a lesser extent Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party, The Pauline Hanson One Nation Party MPs were reported as being very miffed at the Nats.

So what's the go? Lets go dot points but firstly it all revolves around, not a clause but an amendment to a clause that the Nationals voted against. The unamended clause would have maintained the current status quo. The amendment would have changed things...

1. If the amendment was so needed & without it such a cruel travesty would be delivered upon WA then why on earth did all those yelling at the Nats not oppose the amended clause. It went through without dissent. Did they relish the chance to use it as political fodder outside of Parliament or were they a bit missing in action thought wise and staple themselves to something interllectually bankrupt. For me, kinda looks the the latter at least, but possibly both.
   
   
2. If you were compliant before that clause was accepted, then you're compliant now. It is now the status quo. There is no extra or legal exposure with the amendment lost & the clause left untouched.
   
   
3. My understanding was the supporting report used to bolster the amendment was from interstate and refers to "gross negligence" which has very poor definition in WA Law so what happens over east wouldn't automatically transfer to WA without extensive reworking of other Acts to add to "gross negligence". In fact if it were passed as is were might have ended up with legislation that contains a poorly framed term which then relies on a judge to interpret it and it may get very subjective which increases variance in penalty & judgement. Not wise.
   
   

So this is a very complicated bill. It's currently in Upper House Committee. Its not law, they're review & where needed reviewing it, correcting it. I'm told there's over 400 clauses so goodness know how many amendments there'll be when all's said & done. If they conclude it this year with the small number of sitting days left it'll be a miracle.

So did the Nationals do good or did they go over to the dark side of the Greens & Labor to the detriment of Western Australia.

No, they did good. Its not Law, its in committee & that particular clause remains unamended & it remains fact none of those complaining voted against that then unamended clause. They could have shown their disdain & called for a division to have their opposing vote recorded. They didn't oppose it.

This maybe an example of Wedge Politics in 160 days left before State Polling Day but it was certainly a strange move by the WAFarmers CEO & State President. Very little media pick up on it so I think some are looking at it as a grumpy pot shot by a disaffected complainant. Who knows, its very bizarre and I look forward to hearing a better defence of the position by WAFarmers. 

Perhaps, and its only speculation, we should be reminded that the pivotal relationship in an organisation is that between the Chairman & the CEO but it is actually the board's role to over sea that relationship and their individual & combined performance. They need to keep everything in check & accountable.
Not  sure were this is at, but does look a bit adbsurdly ominous at present.

No, I'm fine with the Committee direction and the loss of that amendment & the passing of the unamended clause. No worries at all.

As that weird song goes, "How bizarre, how bizarre"

The "Seal of Confession" & Child Sexual Abuse

 Yes the title has 2 seperate things that should be a million miles apart but they're sadly not.
There is currently a Bill before the WA Parliament. Below is a link to the Upper House Committee Report. It's pretty thorough but not completely exhaustive, there is more to add. 

But one of the key points that will end up stirring controversy for some through not being fully informed is the sanctity of the "Seal of Confession" that will allow a priest in confession to keep what details of serious crime they learn of in confession exempt from mandatory reporting. AND an exclusion from criminality should they keep those details secret.

Usually on religious matters whether supporting or opposing a matter I endeavour to argue from a secular point of view. Deliberately. Reason is whilst many laws of the land may trace their roots back to Judaeo Christian origins, the fact is the law of the land in Australia is secular. Many people are secular, or of differing denominations or completely unrelated, different faiths. You can quote chapter & verse with proper in context exegesis but it's pointless if the person you're talking to is either of a different paith, an atheist/agnostic or indeed could be very anti whatever faith you moght be. You cannot change their mind by citing things from a religion they don't follow or possible deeply oppose. Secular reasoning is the only  way more often than not.

The second preamble point is the "seperation of Church & State" argument. Probably one of the most misunderstood notions we see even in our free nation. It refers to us not being a theocracy or caliphate. 
Our constitution is very clear on this, the government cannot start a religion or faith, cannot enforce observance of a particular religion. Freedom of choice is paramount & immovable.

TO A POINT.

The Waco Massacre, the Jonestown Massacre were all avoidable, had authorities stepped in earlier its debatable what might or might not have happened but one thing is very certain. In Australia there is NO LEGAL PROTECTION for any religion, faith or worldview to allow any seriosu crime to be committed. NONE.

There have throughout history been world views that included human sacrifice & cannibalism to name 2 atrocious vile acts. Neither can be protected, allowed or ignored under "freedom of religion" tenants.

Add into this, there is under Common Law absolutely NO authority given to any religion, no law that delivers legal privelege to the idea of Confession. None. 

As a result there is no legal argument allowing confession to be excluded from mandoatory reporting of Child Sexual Abuse. The argument that little or no people will come forward on Child Sexual Abuse in confession is irrelevant and a devious distraction. A victim might come forward, a perpetrator might come forward, a 3rd party who is aware of others victim of child sexual abuse might come forward and if they do, it is potentially hidden from the blind justice of natural law because some worldview believes it has the authority to have a safe harbour or blind eye option.

No, priests must not be excluded from mandatory reporting of Child Sexual Abuse or indeed any serious criminal acts. 

That's a partial secualr view, now the often avoided faith based view.
Confessional is a cultural mechanism of the Roman Catholic Church & some Orthodox denominations.
There is no Biblical support for the practice at all but I do notice that some selective cherry picking of Scripture does occur. 

In the case of some churches the qualifications for the office of church elder, teacher, pastor is quite clear. They must be married, have children, not be a drunkard and there's a longer list. An unmarried celebate preist is not on the list, in fact Scripture is quite clear they need to be head of a married family due to them needing the skills to run a household if theyre to oversee a flock.
A church with unmarried preists is anti Scripture. Using the false statement that "times change and the church evolved" is factually wrong, there are covenants that supercede others WITHIN Scripture and there are some thigns that do not apply due to the destruction of the Temple in Jeruselum around 70AD and many of those things didn't apply before or after that point to Gentiles and Christians.
In any case, if the church were allowed to "evolve" then it means its man made in its aws & canons, subject only to man. 
Evolution of the church renders opposition to mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse interllectually bankrupt & corrupted.

Confession is a cultural mechanism, people can partke in that if they choose but it is not, nor should it ever be a legal safe harbour.

Members of whatever church should be allowed to prusue whatever part of their faith or worldview they want unhindered and without penalty, with the exception of where criminal activity occurs. Church followers and the church should be freely allowed to take part in confession but with the knowledge there is no exclusion from mandatory reporting exists. There is no exemption from God, there should be no exclusion from law.

As a result on both a secualr or Scriptural perspective there is no sensible support from Recommendation 17 on Page 60 of the report.. None.

Also be aware of the recommendation of the Royal Commission (7.4) is that:

“Laws concerning mandatory reporting to child protection authorities should not exempt persons in religious ministry from being required to report knowledge or suspicions formed, in whole or in part, on the basis of information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession." 

Confession, the seal of confession are all cultural mechanisms, they're not Scriptural, they're not defendable as safe harbours for criminal acts for anyone. 
The Minority recommendation immediately following Recommendation 17 insists that Clause 53 be enacted in full (without any criminal exclusions) and I cannot agree more.
It will as it gets closer to being voted on as a Bill get contentious, but it's not. Its straight forward. There is no secular nor Scriptural defence for excluding preists from criminal or legal responsibility. NONE.

Don't be fooled, it is not over reach of the religious freedom of citizens at all. 

The Upper House Committee Report link ->

https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/(Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID)/D1E72E9FA7E26C2C482585DF000E56A7/$file/ls.ccs.200902.rpf.044.xx-%20web%20version.pdf