(i) Who should decide?

It is interesting to note that while the calendar states that applications for fees exemption must be addressed to the Vice Chancellor such applications have, for many years, been processed by Dr Culliford (the Assistant Principal). Dr Culliford has many other responsibilities within the University to occupy his time. Besides, the only appropriate body to handle such applications is, surely, the Executive of the Students Association.

Studass fees are set by students who also elect an Executive to oversee the financial affairs of their Association. The Registry is only involved with those fees in that it acts as collection agent for them. To give the administrative head of a collection agency (or rather his deputy) the discretion as to whether or not to collect, is farcical. It is students who set the fees — it is their representatives who should have the discretion to waive them. No such discretion at present exists. While Exec actually considered an application for fees reduction this year, and approved it, it then had to approach the Vice-Chancellor to confirm this decision. His readiness to do so augers well for any move to transfer this responsibility to Exec.

In opposition to the above, it has been suggested that the Executive is not an appropriate body to rule on the possible waiving of fees, because it is biased and, by implication, irresponsible. The Vice-Chancellor (or presumably Dr Culliford) has been said, on the other hand, to be impartial and to have time to investigate cases thoroughly. Maybe one should get the Shah of Iran to decide on exemptions from New Zealand income tax — he would be impartial, no doubt, and have plenty of time to . . . Dr Culliford does not have time to make such investigations; nor should he have to find it. Anyway, students elect an Executive to be responsible. To baulk at fiving them responsibility because they are not them impartial is symptomatic of the type of logic we have come to expect from a certain well-known Minister of Education!