There are four major providers currently offering external and distance education programs and the number is likely to be reduced to two. Already the one provider operating within the Sydney metropolitan area has been told that they are not to continue and that the remaining competition exists within three country centres. There seems to be a basic illogicality in assuming that that is the final solution to this particular problem. The major research subject matter expertise lies within a number of institutions which are all outside and over 100 km distant from the nearest proposed distance education centre. If we can expect an increase in individual authorship linked with professional instructional design expertise and a good typist and a computer, then it would be foolish to believe that all the production of materials will be transferred across the great dividing range.
Propinquity is a major factor in achieving a product.
The fact that the subject matter expertise, the design expertise and a computer are within walking distance of each other will help the production of materials in ways not envisaged in the centralised bureaucracies of distance education centres. And it is in this assumption that the White Paper, while looking at the rationalisation, has failed to address the real issue. To link course production and course management is not a necessary relationship - it might be useful but it is not the only model that might be employed. In fact if Australia were ever to establish an Open University then one distance education centre might take on the total management role for the whole of Australia. At this level some economies of scale and management might be achieved.