Breakdown

Neutral Element = “free from outside control not subject to another authority.”

breakdown the whole thing and put crosses beside them

1.
[…] the chief executive may grant a disability allowance in respect of a person — yes
|
with a serious — yes
|
disability — yes
|
being cared for — yes
|
in a private home — no
|
that is the residence of the person — no
|
caring for that person or —no
|
in a residential centre OR home OR hostel — yes
|
managed by — yes
|
an independent —?
|
organisation — yes
|
and there persons parent OR guardian — yes
|
is required to contribute — yes
|
to the costs of — yes
|
maintaining him OR her — yes
|
in that centre OR home OR hostel — yes

2.
(i) The word “independent” is potentially contentious because the Rangiora Residential Centre receives
indirect financial support from the Ministry, as it owns the land and buildings the Centre occupies, and
also the building and repair costs for the said Centre. Therefore doubt arises whether this satisfies
“independent” in terms of an organisation as used in the Social Assistance Act 1982. When something is
independent, we usually think of being self-regulating, and receiving no financial support from the state
that impacts the running of the organisation. Does this satisfy an independent organisation who receives
indirect financial support from the Ministry?
 APPELLATE (narrow) RESPONDENT (wide)

- The appellant would argue that the Rangiora
Residential Centre is not an independent organisation.
They will suggest that the term “independent” as used
in the legislation does not include an organisation that
receives indirect funding from the state. They would
argue that a “independent” organisation is limited to a
self-regulating organisation that receives neither direct
or indirect financial support.
- The respondent would argue a wider meaning of the
word “independent,” as used in the Social Assistance
Act 1982, in suggesting that an organisation can be
considered independent if it is self-regulating, albeit
can receive tacit support that is indirect and does not
cause the organisation to cease being self-regulated.
They would therefore suggest that the Rangiora
Residential Centre can be considered “independent”.
- Furthermore, the respondent would argue that all of the
Centres operation costs are raised without state support
through community fundraising, donations and private
costs paid to the Centre, for it to be able to function,
which means it could likely replace the Ministry’s
contributions from other sources.

(ii) What would each party argue?

3. For an organisation to be independent is it necessary that it is self-regulating, and receives neither

direct nor indirect financial support from the state (narrow, appellant) — want it to jump through
more hoops for it to be independent
OR
Is it sufficient that it is self-regulating even if it receives some indirect financial support from the
state? (wide, respondent)

4.
Dictionary Definition =
Independent > adj. 1 free from outside control not subject to another’s authority. • (of a country) self-
governing. • not supported by public funds: an independent school.

give assistance to, especially financially: the government gives £2,500 million a year to support the
voluntary sector.

Neutral element = self regulating

Distinction = indirect financial support
1st and 3rd subsense of the 3rd definition
this one is stronger here and this one is stronger here
Respondent (wide)
The respondent will counter this, claiming that the definition supports the wide limb. The dictionary
definition includes ‘independent’ means to be “free from outside control, not subject to another authority”.
This primary definition supports the respondent because only a direct and considerable level of support
provided through state funding would lead to an outside authority being able to have some autonomy over
the Rangiora Residential Centre. Only direct financial funding from the state would considerably cause the
Rangiora Residential Centre to not have complete authority over the organisation. Therefore, this definition
supports the wide limb. This definition is inclusive, as it implied that some support is still acceptable, as long
as the organisation is not directly impacted by this funding, and can maintain their autonomy.

Furthermore, a sub-sense of the secondary definition of “supported” in the dictionary is to “provide with a
home and the necessities of life”. This might suggest that to provide the “necessities of life” the Ministry
would have to go beyond just providing land and buildings the centre occupies, and repair costs to the said
centre. The inclusion of “support” in the definition of “independent,” and the meaning of “support” itself
(provide with a home and the necessities of life), lends assistance to the respondents narrow limb, as it
proves the indirect financial support provided by the Ministry is not considerable enough to satisfy the
“necessities of life”.

The primary definition of independent places less limitations that are required to be met on a organisation in
order for it to be considered “independent”. The primary definition infers that an organisation that is self-
regulating and retains its authority can be considered “independent” despite it receiving some indirect
financial support from the state.

Appellant (narrow)
The primary definition of “independent” refers to being “not supported by public funds”. The primary
definition of “independent” matches the narrow limb. The words “not supported by public funds” suggest
that for an organisation to be “independent” it cannot receive any financial support, whether this financial
support is direct or indirect. Supported is defined as (v) “give assistance to, especially financially”. The
words “give assistance to, especially financially” suggest that the centre cannot be considered “independent,”
as “supported” can include indirect financial support in the form of ownership of land and buildings, and
maintenance of said land and buildings, which the Ministry is currently providing for the Rangiora
Residential Centre, i.e. It is not limited to direct funding from the state. The definition of “supported”
suggests that to be supported by something (and therefore to not be considered “independent”) can include
receiving financial support, whether or not this has a direct or indirect impact on the autonomy of the
Rangiora Residential Centre’s running of the organisation. Thus the dictionary supports the appellants
narrow limb.

Furthermore, the words “free from outside control” may be seen to support the appellant as it can be argued
that providing the Rangiora Residential Centre with land and buildings, and maintenance of such land and
buildings, would suggest that the Ministry has some control over the Centre as they are central to the
functioning and running of the organisation, which would not be able to carry out its operation without the
land and buildings it occupies.

This is a stronger argument for the appellant as they are supported by the primary meaning. While
“supported” certainly indicates the action of “provide with a home and the necessities of life,” that is a
subsense of the meaning (as indicated by the arrowhead).

Conclusion
The respondent merely has to show that the dictionary supports their proposition, only having to show that
their wide meaning of “independent” has some support in the dictionary. The dictionary definition of
“independent” is “free from outside control and not subject to another authority,” this definition
demonstrating that, “independent” can include a organisation that receives indirect state funding, so long as
they retain their authority and control of the organisation.
However, we might place greater weight on the secondary definition of “supported” which includes “give
assistance to, especially financially”. The dictionary definition lends support to the appellants narrow limb,
because it deals directly with the word in issue rather than the respondents argument about “supported” as it
is a sub-definition, and is one step further removed from the issue words itself.