US accepts jet from Qatar for use as Air Force One
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth accepted the $US400 million ($A621 million) Boeing-made jet for use as US President Donald Trump's official plane, the Pentagon said.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the Defense Department "will work to ensure proper security measures and functional-mission requirements are considered".
He added that the plane was accepted "in accordance with all federal rules and regulations".
Legal experts have questioned the scope of laws relating to gifts from foreign governments that aim to thwart corruption and improper influence.
Democrats have also sought to block the handover.
Qatar has dismissed concerns about the aircraft deal.
Trump has also shrugged off ethical concerns, saying it would be "stupid" not to accept the jet.
He has defended it as a way to save tax dollars.
"Why should our military, and therefore our taxpayers, be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars when they can get it for FREE," Trump posted on his social media site.
Retrofitting the luxury plane offered by Qatar's royal family will require significant security upgrades, communications improvements to prevent spies from listening in and the ability to fend off incoming missiles, experts say.
That could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
The precise costs were not known but could be significant given the cost for Boeing's current effort to build two new Air Force One planes is more than $US5 billion.
The Air Force One program has faced chronic delays over the last decade, with the delivery of two new 747-8s slated for 2027, three years behind the previous schedule.
Boeing in 2018 received a $US3.9 billion contract to build the two planes for use as Air Force One although costs have since risen.
Boeing has also posted $US2.4 billion in charges from the project.
with AP
The United States has accepted a 747 jetliner as a gift from Qatar and the air force has been asked to find a way to rapidly upgrade it for use as a new Air Force One, the Pentagon says.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth accepted the $US400 million ($A621 million) Boeing-made jet for use as US President Donald Trump's official plane, the Pentagon said.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the Defense Department "will work to ensure proper security measures and functional-mission requirements are considered".
He added that the plane was accepted "in accordance with all federal rules and regulations".
Legal experts have questioned the scope of laws relating to gifts from foreign governments that aim to thwart corruption and improper influence.
Democrats have also sought to block the handover.
Qatar has dismissed concerns about the aircraft deal.
Trump has also shrugged off ethical concerns, saying it would be "stupid" not to accept the jet.
He has defended it as a way to save tax dollars.
"Why should our military, and therefore our taxpayers, be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars when they can get it for FREE," Trump posted on his social media site.
Retrofitting the luxury plane offered by Qatar's royal family will require significant security upgrades, communications improvements to prevent spies from listening in and the ability to fend off incoming missiles, experts say.
That could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
The precise costs were not known but could be significant given the cost for Boeing's current effort to build two new Air Force One planes is more than $US5 billion.
The Air Force One program has faced chronic delays over the last decade, with the delivery of two new 747-8s slated for 2027, three years behind the previous schedule.
Boeing in 2018 received a $US3.9 billion contract to build the two planes for use as Air Force One although costs have since risen.
Boeing has also posted $US2.4 billion in charges from the project.
with AP
The United States has accepted a 747 jetliner as a gift from Qatar and the air force has been asked to find a way to rapidly upgrade it for use as a new Air Force One, the Pentagon says.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth accepted the $US400 million ($A621 million) Boeing-made jet for use as US President Donald Trump's official plane, the Pentagon said.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the Defense Department "will work to ensure proper security measures and functional-mission requirements are considered".
He added that the plane was accepted "in accordance with all federal rules and regulations".
Legal experts have questioned the scope of laws relating to gifts from foreign governments that aim to thwart corruption and improper influence.
Democrats have also sought to block the handover.
Qatar has dismissed concerns about the aircraft deal.
Trump has also shrugged off ethical concerns, saying it would be "stupid" not to accept the jet.
He has defended it as a way to save tax dollars.
"Why should our military, and therefore our taxpayers, be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars when they can get it for FREE," Trump posted on his social media site.
Retrofitting the luxury plane offered by Qatar's royal family will require significant security upgrades, communications improvements to prevent spies from listening in and the ability to fend off incoming missiles, experts say.
That could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
The precise costs were not known but could be significant given the cost for Boeing's current effort to build two new Air Force One planes is more than $US5 billion.
The Air Force One program has faced chronic delays over the last decade, with the delivery of two new 747-8s slated for 2027, three years behind the previous schedule.
Boeing in 2018 received a $US3.9 billion contract to build the two planes for use as Air Force One although costs have since risen.
Boeing has also posted $US2.4 billion in charges from the project.
with AP
The United States has accepted a 747 jetliner as a gift from Qatar and the air force has been asked to find a way to rapidly upgrade it for use as a new Air Force One, the Pentagon says.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth accepted the $US400 million ($A621 million) Boeing-made jet for use as US President Donald Trump's official plane, the Pentagon said.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the Defense Department "will work to ensure proper security measures and functional-mission requirements are considered".
He added that the plane was accepted "in accordance with all federal rules and regulations".
Legal experts have questioned the scope of laws relating to gifts from foreign governments that aim to thwart corruption and improper influence.
Democrats have also sought to block the handover.
Qatar has dismissed concerns about the aircraft deal.
Trump has also shrugged off ethical concerns, saying it would be "stupid" not to accept the jet.
He has defended it as a way to save tax dollars.
"Why should our military, and therefore our taxpayers, be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars when they can get it for FREE," Trump posted on his social media site.
Retrofitting the luxury plane offered by Qatar's royal family will require significant security upgrades, communications improvements to prevent spies from listening in and the ability to fend off incoming missiles, experts say.
That could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
The precise costs were not known but could be significant given the cost for Boeing's current effort to build two new Air Force One planes is more than $US5 billion.
The Air Force One program has faced chronic delays over the last decade, with the delivery of two new 747-8s slated for 2027, three years behind the previous schedule.
Boeing in 2018 received a $US3.9 billion contract to build the two planes for use as Air Force One although costs have since risen.
Boeing has also posted $US2.4 billion in charges from the project.
with AP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Iran's latest decision reveals flaw in Trump's big plan
If before the strike Iran seemed able to race for a bomb but was not yet quite ready, after the strike it is dependent on playing a giant game of nuclear three-card monte. Iran will keep shuffling its nuclear assets around, as the Mossad, US intelligence agencies and the banned UN inspectors will constantly be looking for human intelligence or satellite evidence of the tunnels and caves where the projects might be hidden. 'After the strike the old problem remains: Iran has enriched uranium, it has centrifuges and there are no inspectors,' said Jake Sullivan, who helped refine strike plans against the Iranian program when he served as national security adviser under president Joe Biden, who decided against using them. 'With mowing the lawn, you have uncertainty, instability and continued military action,' he said. 'Yet if you try to do a deal, President Trump will confront the same problem he had before: Do you insist on complete dismantlement, which Iran probably won't agree to even now? Or try to contain the program,' allowing for some form of low-level, highly inspected enrichment, 'in a way that gives you confidence they can't go for a nuke?' The Pentagon is not exactly encouraging that confidence. Its chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, said on Wednesday (Thursday AEST) that he believed Iran's nuclear program had been pushed back 'probably closer to two years' – an assessment that, if accurate, would mean that Trump bought less time with the attack than president Barack Obama did when he signed the 2015 accord that froze Iran's program. With their main production facilities buried beneath the rubble, the only leverage the Iranians have these days is the suggestion – with no proof – that their stockpile of 10 or so bombs' worth of fuel survived, and their surviving nuclear scientists have access to it. Maybe they are bluffing. But it is the best card they have to play. And the only way to be sure, Sullivan noted, is 'with a deal, one that ensures every inch of the program is inspected'. Other experts agree. 'We can't yet judge how likely the covert nuclear weapons production scenario really is,' said Robert Einhorn, a former US diplomat and Brookings Institution nuclear expert who dealt with the Iranian program a decade ago. But, he noted, 'it is a potential pathway for Iran building a small nuclear arsenal relatively soon, and so we must do what we can to block it', chiefly getting International Atomic Energy Agency monitors back into the country's widely distributed nuclear facilities, including two suspected new enrichment centres. Iranian officials have accused the agency's director-general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, of complicity in the attacks. Grossi says he had no involvement or advance warning. Early talk of a meeting between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to reach a post-strike nuclear deal – presumably a more restrictive one than was on the table before the attack – has melted away, at least for now. The Iranians insist they want assurances they will not be attacked during negotiations again. It is unclear that they would believe such a commitment even if it is offered, since Trump declared in mid-June that he was giving them two weeks to respond to a final US offer. The B-2 bombers were over their targets two days later. With Iran's leaders portraying the end of the conflict with Israel as a victory, and downplaying the damage done by US strikes, experts see little hope of an accord that would satisfy both sides. 'They are not going to agree to unconditional surrender next week or even next month,' said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, using the term Trump employed before he ordered military action. 'I think that's a process which plays out the more we tighten the economic grip on their ability to export oil.' The central question, of course, is what lesson the Iranians emerge with as they survey the damage done. Trump and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth have declared there is only one lesson for the Iranians: their nuclear program is over. That is why Trump and Hegseth are so invested in the narrative that the program was 'obliterated', suggesting it could never be revived. Loading Most experts expect Iran to come to a different conclusion; that countries that inch toward a nuclear weapon – but stop short of crossing the line, as Iran did – get bombed. In contrast, countries that race for an arsenal do not. The Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981 to keep Iraq from getting the bomb, though Saddam Hussein resurrected the program before the first Gulf War, only to have it discovered and dismantled. (He famously did not build it anew before the US-led invasion in 2003.) A little more than two decades later, Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nascent nuclear program, before many of the components were unboxed, a move he may have regretted as he was chased across Libya and killed eight years later. In 2007, Israeli jets took out a Syrian nuclear reactor that was being constructed with the help of North Korea, to prevent the Assad government from going down the nuclear road. In all three cases, the countries had not yet made it to the cusp of a bomb. Loading Iran may conclude from the events of the past 10 days that its wiser choice for the future is to follow the path of North Korea. Rather than walk up to the nuclear line, it stepped over it, conducting its first nuclear test in 2006, when president George W. Bush was in office. Since then, North Korea has developed an arsenal of 60 or more nuclear weapons, experts say, and it is creeping up on a capability to reach the United States with its missiles – one of the reasons Trump is pushing so hard for a 'Golden Dome' defensive shield. One former senior intelligence official noted that if Iran already had nuclear weapons, rather than inching toward them, neither Israel nor the United States would have taken the risk of attacking. It is a mistake, he added, that the Iranians are not likely to make twice.
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Europe must 'step up' as US halts some arms to Ukraine, EU chief says
Europe must beef up aid to Ukraine following Washington's decision to pause some weapons shipments, EU chief Ursula von der Leyen said Thursday, as Denmark vowed to use its EU presidency to push for Ukraine's EU accession. Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was invited to attend the official start of Denmark's six-month turn at the rotating EU helm, which comes as the United States announced it would stop supplying some weapons to Ukraine. "It's a clear message to step up our own support, ramping up our European defence capacities, not only at the level of the European Union, but at the continental level," von der Leyen told a press conference in Aarhus, Denmark alongside Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. Frederiksen meanwhile stressed that the Nordic nation would push for Ukraine membership in the EU. "Ukraine is a part of our European family, and it has been very important for us that President Zelensky has been able to join us here today... Our European family would not be complete without his presence," Frederiksen said. Ukraine launched its bid to become an EU member in the aftermath of Russia's 2022 invasion, but it has stalled because of opposition from Hungary. "We must strengthen Ukraine. And we must weaken Russia," Frederiksen said in a statement earlier Thursday announcing Zelensky's attendance in Aarhus, Denmark's second largest city. Frederiksen has stressed the importance of European security, which she has linked to a strict migration policy, and the country has promised to push the agenda and champion Ukraine during its EU presidency. Russian strikes have intensified in the absence of progress on resolving the conflict, and the US moves have severely hampered Kyiv, which has relied on Western military support since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. "Ukraine is essential to Europe's security. Our contribution to Ukraine is also a protection of our freedom," Frederiksen said. "Ukraine belongs in the European Union. It is in both Denmark's and Europe's interest. Therefore, the Danish EU presidency will do everything we can to help Ukraine on their way towards EU membership." - Working 'behind the scenes' - Denmark's Europe minister Marie Bjerre told reporters earlier on Thursday that Ukraine's EU membership bid was "very important for us". "We are still trying to lift the resistance from Hungary," she said. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said that Ukraine's membership of the EU would "ruin" the 27-nation bloc. Using its veto power, Hungary has effectively frozen the accession process. Ukraine has insisted it still hopes Budapest can be brought around, claiming intensive work is being done "behind the scenes". US President Donald Trump has effectively nixed Ukraine's attempts to join the NATO military alliance. As Zelensky arrived in Denmark, he announced that Ukraine has signed a deal with US company American company Swift Beat to produce drones for Ukraine's military. In a post to X, Zelensky said the company "foresees hundreds of thousands of drones this year alone, with the potential to significantly scale up production in the coming year." The Danish government said Thursday's discussions in Aarhus with von der Leyen and Zelensky would include increased military support, cooperation with the Ukrainian defence industry and new sanctions against Russia. The Nordic nation has also made repeated calls for Europe to boost defence spending. Denmark wants to move forward on a European plan presented in March to increase the defence capabilities of EU countries using simplified procedures and loans to finance investments in the European defence industry. It has already begun increasing its own defence spending, which now exceeds three percent of GDP. cbw-cjc/jll/po/giv
The Advertiser
4 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Does Sir Joh remind you of someone else?
Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar.
