So how did Bligh manage to secure the support of 60% of the delegates at the Labor conference??

When a State becomes a church, it does whatever it likes. This is what has happened in Queensland. When Australia became a federation it had one state church, exercising the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth through State courts. In 1991 Queensland made itself a State Church, with its own Courts, outside the Constitution.

We have made a fundamental error in government and all should ask that it be corrected. My work with the Constitution has been working towards finding where it came from and tracing its pedigree. I have found that by tracing the Oath of Allegiance back to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second and her Oath taken in Westminster Abbey, that in point of fact, a court is a form of divine worship, in which the Queen is deemed to be always present, and the word Court capitalized, cannot be substituted for it, because it is not a form of divine worship.

If you look at S 2 Judiciary Act 1903 you will see Court and Judge are both capitalized in the definition of Appeal. Reading the plain English of that 106 year old Statute, you can see that if a matter has been decided by any Court or Judge, an Appeal is granted automatically. This was because in 1903, the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 16 Charles 1 Ch X. was known to all the lawyers, and they knew that if a Judge decided a matter it was void.

Void is the word used in the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 16 Charles 1 Ch X. This Statute is transcribed in full in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 ( Vic). This was a condition precedent upon the Constitution and was definitely in force when the Australian Courts Act 1828 was enacted. The fundamental mistake of making a Judge a God, must be corrected, and our right to worship in a court restored.

Queensland is in big trouble, and probably facing bankruptcy, as soon as Kevin Rudd gives Australians back their religious freedom, and makes the Federal Court a place of divine worship, now that the States have abolished theirs.

I can't answer that question completely.

In fact, 100% of delegates carried a motion reaffirming Labor's opposition to privatisation, but a second weasel word resolution, effectively recognising that privatisation would proceed, was carried.

About 44 'left wing' delegates ran away -- sorry, abstained -- when that was put to the vote. If they had not, the vote would have been closer, but not lost. On the other hand if those 'left wing' delegates had stayed and those opposed to privatisation had fought harder, others who voted for the weasel word resolution might have been persuaded to vote against it and the outcome could have been different.

A lot of the outcome of the conference, including the abstention of those 44 delegates would have been decided in secret back room deals away from the view of many other delegates.

If delegates truly reflected the views of those whom they were representing, the vote at the conference would have been in the order of 80%-98% to demand that the Government abandon its privatisation and to disendorse any Labor Party MLA's who dared proceed to vote for privatisation on the floor of Parliament.

However, few delegates, Labor Party branch delegates and, more so, delegates representing Trade Unions are not held accountable to those they represent.

They won't be made to explain to ordinary union members or Labor Party branch members why they betrayed them on the weekend.

See also "Delegates give green light to push ahead with $15b sale" at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,27574,25601624-3102,00.html

"ALP conference gives Bligh an ovation" at http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/alp-conference-gives-bligh-an-ovation-20090607-bzfo.html

The google news search terms I use are: Queensland privatisation

That may be the answer daggett, the 44 who ran away, how true gutless that is.
NSW saw an idiot cabenet, yes my true view, try to roll us on power, left right and center stood together.
So far, do not bank on it, we have won.
Never thought I would say this but our chances of winning next election are,no chance without change.
Better to be flogged by an enemy than a friend
Trouble is I can no longer tell who is what.

Belly wrote, "Never thought I would say this but our chances of winning next election are, no chance without change."

I agree. All but two of the Queensland Parliamentary caucus have disqualified themselves from even being suitable to be officeholders in any democracy, let alone representatives of working people.

I would be happy to see this lot sacked by the Governor and have new elections called.

If the Labor Party doesn't have the nous to disendorse the whole of the current crowd, with the exception of those two who voted against privatisation at that caucus meeting, we could hardly be worse off under a LNP government.

In fact, if you read the chapter on Margaret Thatcher's Britain on Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" you will learn that Thatcher was not able to implement much of her radical reactionary policy in her early years of Office. If it had not been for the Falklands War, it is likely that she would have lost the next election and a rejuvenated Labor Party would have come to power.

So, the dreadful outcome of the downfall of the Labor Government in 1979 was not inevitable, need not be repeated in Queensland in 2009.

I would rather take my chances in that scenario than quietly endure almost three more years of misrule by the Bligh Labor Government.

ludwig<<So how did Bligh manage to secure the support of 60% of the delegates at the Labor conference??>>it really isnt that difficult[if you recall peter had over 200 secretaries,numbers are easy to select from the publicking service

im fairly sure that the national party public service took over labour party when qld realised that sir joe had bucklies to get re-elected[and as the law society runs the state,numbers are fairly easy to get]

i noted in my 20 years of activism that the greens simularily have been taken over[you must know if your calling on people to protest say a mine site[the miners send in some of their miners[or loggers or whatever]...its a numbers game...i learned of the game a long time ago

the kingston butter factory museum called for the public to join together to form a board[it was a well attended meeting,and soon enough a commity was formed,..during the course of a few meetings i soon realised i was the only one not paid to be there[the rest were all..[ALL]..public servants

oits just as easy for peter[say]or anna..to send in his/her 200 secretaries to stack any meeting[who is going to complain..,.and even if you do..[what numbers you got to change a single thing..[heck unions been doing it forever..[why be supprised that the nats simply played the same numbers game]

other things i have noted is how howhard upped public liability insurance[this had the net affect of shutting down many groups and assosiations[groups and assosiations can[could]..play the same numbers game[so govt got them shut down,.

.anyhow there are other ways to get numbers..[i noted at the ryan by election all the labour scruiteneers were greek,males mid thirties.. where as the lib scruiterneers were of many races..[ages and sexes]

if you search you soon find out its all about the numb-ers..[they just learned not to come in buss loads]