Examinations of possible abuse of power under ÖVP or under SPÖ and FPÖ responsibility can begin
Vienna (PK) – In today’s meeting, the National Council announced the treatment of the COFAG investigative committee requested by the SPÖ and FPÖ and the Red-Blue investigative committee on abuse of power initiated by the ÖVP meeting the formal starting signal for their admission. While the Social Democrats and Freedom Party want to examine whether there is a “two-class administration” in favor of billionaires close to the ÖVP – especially in the case of payments from the federal COVID financing agency (COFAG) – the People’s Party wants to investigate possible misuse of public money under the SPÖ and FPÖ. Take a closer look at government participation. In yesterday’s Rules of Procedure Committee, the way was paved for the requests made at the end of November for the establishment of the U-committees and the framework conditions for their activities were largely clarified (see Parliamentary correspondence NO.1407/2023).
In view of two investigative committees to be held in parallel, MPs from all parliamentary groups were united by their concern for the reputation of politics itself. The parliamentary control instrument of the committee of inquiry, which is defended by all parties, must not degenerate into a “mud battle”, as was heard from the NEOS and the Greens. At the same time, the ÖVP, SPÖ and FPÖ accused each other of misusing the instrument.
Second President of the National Council Doris Bures announced at the end of the meeting that the FPÖ had requested that the Court of Auditors carry out a financial audit. This audit should relate to “illegal party financing” by ÖVP and Green ministries. With the request made by 20 MPs, the legal requirements for carrying out the budget audit are met even without a resolution from the National Council.
COFAG Investigative Committee
The one demanded by the SPÖ and FPÖ COFAG Investigative Committee is intended to examine possible preferential treatment of people who can be attributed to assets of at least one billion euros and who have supported the ÖVP through donations or whose support was solicited by the ÖVP. The focus of the investigations should be on the federal COVID financing agency (COFAG) and its payments to billionaires or corporations close to the People’s Party. Further topics of evidence listed in the request are: “distribution of information and interventions”, “cooperation between state-affiliated companies and ÖVP-affiliated billionaires” and “state supervision”. This involves subsidies, tax discounts, accelerated procedures or the transfer of information as well as supervisory board positions and the awarding of contracts. Any interventions in connection with supervisory or criminal proceedings as well as possible flows of bribes should also be investigated. According to the request, the period to be examined extends from December 18, 2017 to November 23, 2023.
According to Klaus Führlinger (ÖVP), the most certain result of the committee of inquiry will be “overall damage” to politics itself, as the two previous committees of inquiry and the reactions of the population to the establishment of the current one have already shown. All politicians are “in the same boat” in this regard. Nevertheless, Fürhlinger supports Parliament’s right to control the administration. He expressed the opinion that “everyone was treated equally” within the framework of COFAG, as it acted on the basis of strict rules and with the involvement of the tax authorities. If that was not the case, this must be clarified and future instructions derived from it, said Führlinger. In general, politics as a whole expects an “acid test of whether party-political narcissism or a big-picture view” can prevail.
SPÖ MP Kai Jan Krainer spoke of the “black box” COFAG and emphasized that it was able to operate without any parliamentary control until the Constitutional Court ruled. “Of course” the opportunity will now be used to investigate allegations of structural over-promotion. There is agreement that the economic aid was necessary to save jobs, but not to finance profits or even “record profits,” explained Krainer. The European Commission found that COFAG had made illegal payments amounting to up to €1 billion and COFAG’s management itself spoke of €400 million. Although there were constructive discussions with the ÖVP in the run-up to the investigative committees, in the previous Rules of Procedure Committee it had delivered a “first failure to clarify” because it did not agree to also include ÖBAG, the Federal Real Estate Company (BIG) and its ARE- To oblige subsidiaries, Bundesbeschaffens GmbH (BBG) and ABBAG to supply files and documents to the COFAG investigative committee.
The loss of trust in politics is carried by the “three letters ÖVP,” Christian Hafenecker (FPÖ) responded to Führlinger. It was the ÖVP who initiated the COFAG investigative committee through its behavior, and it could have been spared if it had “managed things properly”. Instead, in the spirit of a “deep state,” it merely maximized money and power, which now needs to be addressed and made visible, according to Hafenecker. Among other things, he mentioned the cases of Sophie Karmasin and René Benko, which he did not want to “drag on,” but which would demonstrate a “black ethic.”
The Greens have been fighting for the minority rights of the investigative committee for years, as their representative David Stögmüller explained, and would also take the constitutional mandate to provide information seriously – regardless of which party is in focus. There is no need for “hobby sheriffs with smoking guns” or deputies who want to prevent the investigation by disrupting the matter. Stögmüller was convinced that this educational process would also provide important impetus for legal changes in the context of improving the political system. “At best,” the investigative committees ended in a package of measures in this sense supported by a broad majority.
NEOS mandater Nikolaus Scherak saw the “party-political narcissism” criticized by Klaus Führlinger as being at work in the ÖVP when it immediately demanded its own committee of inquiry in response to an investigative committee directed against it. It is precisely this behavior that damages trust in the political system. Of course, a government party can also demand a committee of inquiry, but this should not be misused as a “retirement” for a “mud-slinging,” warned Scherak. The ÖVP, SPÖ and FPÖ all have a “corruption problem” and are therefore not interested in any real clarification.
Red-Blue Abuse of Power Investigative Committee
With the Red-Blue Abuse of Power Investigative Committee The People’s Party wants to take a closer look at the government participation of the SPÖ and the FPÖ in the period from January 11th, 2007 to January 7th, 2020, with a particular focus on possible inappropriate use of public money by “red” and “blue” ministers: internally managed departments. Specifically, the ÖVP is interested in placing advertisements, media cooperation agreements, surveys, reports, studies and other contract awards. The filling of management positions in the federal administration and in outsourced legal entities as well as any public prosecutor’s investigations are also part of the subject of the investigation – which includes a total of seven evidentiary topics. The committee of inquiry requested by the ÖVP also includes COFAG. The ÖVP parliamentary group is interested in whether natural or legal persons close to the SPÖ or the FPÖ have been given preferential treatment for “irrelevant reasons” through tax concessions, tax discounts or other benefits.
For Andreas Hanger (ÖVP), the constructive non-partisan cooperation on the technical preparation of the investigative committees nurtured the hope that political culture could improve through objective cooperation, as he explained in the plenary session. The parliamentary right of control also applies to the ruling ÖVP party and it has clearly defined the subject of the investigative committee it initiated. Hanger did not accept the “foul” in the evidence decision criticized by Kai Jan Krainer (SPÖ) because there was no legal basis for demanding the documents requested by the SPÖ and FPÖ.
Eva Maria Holzleitner (SPÖ) was keen to use “professional and serious educational work” to prevent damage to the political system and in particular to the instrument of the investigative committee. This should not be seen as a “mud battle”, especially at a time when democracy and parliamentarism are under pressure. Holzleitner did not question the minority right to set up an investigative committee for the ÖVP, but he did question the constitutionality of the ÖVP’s specific request. The subject of the investigation must relate to a specific completed process in the area of federal enforcement, which the Red-Blue Abuse of Power Investigative Committee does not do, said Holzleitner.
Christian Hafenecker (FPÖ) also viewed the ÖVP’s investigative committee as unconstitutional and stated that it only served as a distraction. This means that an important instrument of democracy is being misused. However, Hafenecker noted that it was good that the ÖVP chose the path of minority rights, as this would enable them to better prepare for their future role in parliament.
Green MP Meri Disoski appealed to all parliamentary groups to focus on the “true spirit of the committee of inquiry” and to put aside “mud-slinging” in favor of control and transparency for the benefit of the citizens. It was the right of both sides to demand a committee of inquiry, explained Disoski, but the timing – shortly before the European and National Council elections – made her doubt the seriousness of the intentions. In any case, the Greens would take part in a serious investigation of the past in both committees.
Michael Bernhard (NEOS) also strongly doubted that the ÖVP, SPÖ and FPÖ had any serious intentions. Their concern is not mutual control, but rather mutual “destruction”, which will ultimately affect the entire country and the reputation of politics. Bernhard saw it as a “big mess” that the ÖVP was demanding that all around 200,000 companies that had received support from COFAG be checked to see whether they had any relationship with the SPÖ or FPÖ. This would take the entrepreneurs “hostage,” said Scherak. But the NEOS would fight these attacks against the entrepreneurs. (End of National Council) wit
NOTE: Meetings of the National Council and the Federal Council can also be followed via live stream and are available as video-on-demand in the Parliament’s media library available.
Questions & Contact:
Press service of the Parliamentary Directorate
Parliamentary correspondence
Tel. +43 1 40110/2272
press service@parlament.gv.at
http://www.parlament.gv.at
www.facebook.com/OeParl
www.twitter.com/oeparl