Well if that is happening, reinforces my view that public funding of tests will come under review.
Good stuff guys, keep it coming. All useful points.
spartacus, have you read the Crawford Report? The government has already looked at sports funding in considerable detail. The recommendation was to increase funding for sports overall, but look at allocation of funding individual sports on merit and participation numbers, and not favour olympic sports. It was ignored. While some olympic sports like swimming got less, this was a result of the poor showing at the London olympics rather than policy.
They won't review public funding of testing. In fact, you're a bit late with your prediction, because about 5 days ago the Federal Government announced a $3.5million injection to ASADA and will beef up its investigative powers (which will no doubt mean they can now compel interrogation of non-athletes/support personnel).
It might be your view that public funding
should come under review, which is a perfectly valid opinion, but IMO, not a very good gauge of the current political environment.
ASADA itself came under parliamentary review in 2009 by DoHA. The review did not make any recommendations on funding, but rather that it's corporate governance needed improvement. Look at the language of both sides of parliament when they introduced the amendment bill:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/sp-yr09-ke-kesp160909.htm
http://www.andrewsouthcott.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/76/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/628/Australian-Sports-Anti-Doping-Authority-Amendment-Bill-2009.aspx
They will not go to a user-pay system. $12-15 million is nothing in the federal budget and a perception of a strong stance on anti-doping resonates with the electorate. In the wake of the ACC report, both sides of politics will look to take advantage of the public mood and beef up funding of ASADA. They are completely bi-partisan on this issue. Many guys here will not agree, but rightly or wrongly I don't think the views here are reflective of public sentiment.
You might find it useful to review the ASADA annual reports. If you don't think they aren't transparent enough, the formal channel to get research material is FOI as it is a government agency.