Dude, I think that you will find most if not all RPT operators by now have examiners on staff who can issue the ATPL during routine simulator checks. Plus a few independent examiners have recently been appointed. So the 95% who are going to use the ATPL at home really should not be up for any costs if it is done within their employer's system.
As for airlines requiring the full ATPL now to join, the same employers often ask for a type rating as well. Find the right training facility and you can get the ATPL on the same check as the type rating.
If the supply of ATPL holders dries up, airlines will soon enough go back to only requiring subjects passed.
So, the problem is really for those who need the licence to go overseas. Hence, we must have a licence that meets ICAO standards, regardless of any perception that some may have about our benign weather etc not really requiring the full Monty of a ...shock....horror...test.
As for those who slipped under the wire with no test and no airline experience but merely the magic 1500 hours and subjects, good luck to them. We can't retrospectively require them to now do a test, and if they are operating safely here, well and good. The checks and balances of annual instrument rating renewals have probably been enough to save them. However, if we had the USA style perpetual validity of an instrument rating as I suggest we can hardly expect our CASA to also waive any requirement for an ATPL test. ICAO would surely see this as too much dumbing down.
An overseas regulator tasked with assessing a licence conversion would - or should - be interested in knowing how the licence was obtained. If not happy they could require the whole ATPL to be done again. Plus, of course for any applicant seeking to fly their registry, a flight test - as UK, French, German, Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, USA etc authorities have done for years.