Sounds like a good reason to outsource the whole thing then... maybe the taxpayer would get a bit more accountability and better value - and better pilots if the process was not so focussed on achieving 'the standard' by rejection. No-one wants you to make a profit but we do want you to be good at what you do... If you find it nescessary to reject so many then maybe you're not so good at what you do?
The financial and human cost of doing it your way maybe needs looking at!
Cleared to reenter, you can't have it both ways.
The alternative to 'achieving the standard by rejection' is 'achieving the standard by repeating the exercise until the student gets it right and is consistently able to keep getting it right'.
As a taxpayer, I want RAAF graduates to be capable of passing appropriate tests of skill and knowledge that add up to a reasonable 'wings' standard.
If they consistently struggle or fail to achieve milestones on course, I don't want to keep pumping money into them - after a reasonable amount of remediation, of course.
How many extra flights is too many? What would your favoured system of ensuring we graduate pilots of an appropriate standard be? Probably a course with a curriculum, some tests of knowledge and skill along the way, a way of providing extra training and remediation up to an appropriate amount when required? Sounds a lot like what happens now.
What is an outsourced organisation going to do differently?
Yes, there is human cost - I'm no harsh advocate of scrubbing, and I feel deeply for those who don't make it, but I still see the need for it to happen when it's warranted. Financial cost - yes, some money goes down the tubes when someone doesn't graduate, but it's better then continuing to throw it at them ad infinitum.
Finally, people like Elwood obviously have a hard time going through times like this (and good luck to you mate), but at the end they have the benefit of what training they did get out of the system and can build on that foundation as they choose.