Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Let us demolish some of these arguments once and for all. You do not need a bobcat or a big demolition thing; just one of those toy demolition trucks you can buy from Toys R Us for $29.95 would do. Let us deal with some of these arguments. Firstly, you say that these issues were not raised in the inquiry. I think it is implicit that, if there is a loss, the inquiry did deal with the issue of losses. If there are incidental losses, I would have thought that would have been within the remit of the Baird inquiry. I think Bruce Baird did a terrific job in dealing with a whole range of issues, but this is something that still is left untouched. I take your point about travel insurance, but if they do not have travel insurance it is still an incidental cost.

In terms of the financial implications for the TPS levy, that argument verges on the Orwellian—it is not quite Orwellian, but it verges on the Orwellian—for this reason: the amendment actually specifies that there cannot be any payment made if it would jeopardise the fund and that there must be consultation with the TPS director. In terms of a sustainable tuition fund, it actually acknowledges that. It says you cannot make any determination unless you consider those factors.

You mention that $30 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on the ESOS fund. That is a lot of taxpayers' money, but also very significant is the risk if we continue to have a slide in the number of overseas students in this country. It is a multibillion dollar industry. I do not know whether Senator Mason off the top of his head can provide me with some gratuitous assistance, but I think it is about $15 billion a year.