Martin TraceyTRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I want to address the $11 billion. The National Government continues to tell the New Zealand public that there has never been more funding for education before because it is now at $11 billion. In this Budget there is—it is quite right—$10792273000. That is right absolutely right. What the Government does not tell you unfortunately is that in 2008 the Budget was $10091279000—a $701 million difference over a 9-year period. You might say of a $701 million difference: Wow that's amazing."Let us just be clear: in 2009 Anne Tolley put a price on leaky schools—the Minister has just mentioned leaky schools. It is important that when this Government says there is $11 billion in education the suggestion is that that is being spent on children. The suggestion is that that is directly impacting the education of children whether that be in more resources whether that be in more teaching staff or whether that be in lowering class sizes. We know that is not true so where is that $701 million going? The price tag put on leaky schools—and let us remember who created the leaky building controversy—is $1.5 billion. So the increase that this Government is telling the New Zealand public about—"Wow we've put this much more money into it."—is going into property.But it is not just going into the taxpayers' property. For example $61600000 has gone to the private property of integrated schools. Those are assets owned by the private proprietors of integrated schools. That is $61600000 of this $11 billion has gone to those private assets.Let us just talk about the fact of one of the largest private early childhood education providers in New Zealand. Its profit before financial costs went up by 121 percent in the last financial year—this Budget that we are talking about—and 82 percent of its business is Government business. So this private company had a 121 percent increase in profit because 82 percent of its money which creates this profit comes from the taxpayer—the taxpayers of New Zealand—out of this $11 billion. It had a profit margin of $32.9 million. This is why it is important New Zealand: do not accept it when backbenchers of this Government say "We put in $11 billion."—find out where that money is going.Let us also be clear that $16824000 was spent on advice to the Minister which is an increase of $5 million in this Budget alone; $1000624628 was spent on property; $34 million was spent on services other than policy to the Minister; $761 million was spent on capital expenditure directly for the ministry—not for a school but directly for the ministry; that is what is in this Budget—and $4638000 was actually to set up the Education Council. What is interesting about that is that that cost is now going to be shifted by this Government on to teachers. This Government set up the Education Council. We had the Teachers Council but we wanted to remove the actual voting rights of teachers to have their own representatives there so the Government set up the Education Council for $4638000. That will run out and is going to have to be paid for by the teaching staff of New Zealand with a hundred-and-something percent increase in their actual fees to join that organisation which they must join.Let us also not forget the cuts that were made by this Government in 2009 before it started to build them back up again. New Zealand you need to look backward before you decide to swallow the information that is being given to you.The other reason why and it is very interesting—this is an article that is from 1 April 2017. And why it actually works into this debate Mr Chairperson is that—this is a quote from this article "The Figures Do Not Add Up Minister": "In Parliament media releases and news reports the Minister"—that was the then Minister Hekia Parata—"stated that 'funding for schooling' or 'Vote Education' had increased by 35 percent since 2008."Todd Barclay: That's right.TRACEY MARTIN: "The Minister"—sorry that was Todd Barclay if anybody is listening who shouted out "That's right."—"later confirmed what many had assumed—her figures included everything in the education budget not just what schools received. The 35 percent includes everything from ministry consultants to IES charter schools rolling out National Standards and school rebuilds and construction." So let us be clear: do not swallow—[Interruption] Well let us talk about charter schools. Let us talk about charter schools and the report that came through. I have here an article from 2 May that refers to the $14 million out of that Budget that has been spent on charter schools and to the comment from the Vanguard Military School chief executive Nick Hyde when he had to justify why $309391 in 1 year was taken away from the educational dollar to fund over and above its payment to its principal for management services. He said that splitting that payment off to its management services—i.e. the company that he and his father had run before charter schools ever arrived. He said that by splitting that amount of money off it led to further success which included a 100 percent NCEA level 2 pass rate.Let us read the report on the ministry by the Education and Science Committee: "We note a discrepancy between how partnership schools report on their NCEA results compared with other schools … We asked why the reporting differs for partnership schools. We heard that this is a technical issue. The ministry is investigating how to address it to provide a transparent and accurate picture of the pass rates. At present partnership schools only know if a student has left the school and not whether they have left the education system. This means the partnership school may incorrectly count a student as passing NCEA." What that says is that there is no way to prove what partnership schools are talking about.What is of even greater concern is that when a State school—and I have known three of them—has reported a 100 percent NCEA level 2 pass rate the Education Review Office instantly goes in and does an investigation. How come not with a charter school? How come with a charter school we accept it or we are supposed to accept it through a glossy brochure? These schools are funded to $14 million by the taxpayer and we are supposed to accept them on face value. Minister Parata and David Seymour stood up and lauded that in this Chamber.Let us also just remember that so far of the original charter schools that are still open around $10 million came out of this Budget alone for those charter schools. What about the Whangaruru money? We have still seen no recovery there. The Ministry of Education estimated—this is from an article in 2016—that the cost of Whangaruru School was $5.2 million. The farm itself paid for by taxpayers' dollars was $1.38 million and Minister Parata stood up in this House and said that the Ministry of Education was negotiating. Where are those negotiations Minister? Where are those negotiations at to get back either the $5.2 million originally funded for Whangaruru School or the $1.38 million that was used to purchased land or buildings or even to get back the land for the New Zealand taxpayer? We have never heard about it yet we are supposed to swallow quietly that this Government is funding education appropriately when it squanders money—it squanders money—that is needed.The worst thing is the cut of $42000908 that the appropriation provided to service individuals with special education and special needs. That was a cut from the last Budget to this Budget—$42 million—for the very children who we at the Education and Science Committee know need the greatest support yet inside this appropriation there is a cut."