It is 2025 when the law firm in which you work is asked for advice. Now for some background.

Jim Beanholds a pilot licencethat was granted under theMarine Safety Act 2010(Vic).

Interviewed for Channel XYZ's 'My Career' program, he talked at length about the dangers and excitement in being a marine pilot. He said one of the challenges was being a pilot withmonocular vision. He said he had only recently discovered he had that vision. He said he had 'learnt' how to deal with it.

A person listening to the broadcast was the Safety Director under the Marine Safety Act.

He began aninvestigation into Jim's licence. He located the application form for a pilot licence that Jim had lodged, including the attachments to the application - a medical certificate and eyesight certificate. On further investigation he discovered that theeyesight certificate was issued by an optometrist who had subsequently been struck off for being unqualified.

Jim received a letter from the Safety Director:

'I am concerned about the application you made for a pilot licence. You were required to attach acertified copy of your latest medical certificate and eyesight certificate. You were asked to declare that

"All particulars supplied on this application form and any attachments are true and correct."

The eyesight certificate you attached (Attachment B) stated that your vision (near and distance) and colour vision is satisfactory within [relevant standard]. The certificate specifically states you do not have monocular vision. I have reason to believe that one or more of these statements was not true and correct. I am referring in particular to the statement concerning monocular vision.

I am hereby giving you notice that I am considering taking disciplinary action against you on the ground that your pilot licence was obtained by false statement in Attachment B.

You have 21 days to show cause why I should not exercise my discretion to take disciplinary action against you under Division 2 of Part 4.6 of theMarine Safety Act 2010(Vic).'

Within that period Jim comes to the law firm in which you work for advice and assistance. He says that the eyesight appointment he had for the purposes of his application for a pilot licence was 'very quick', but he did not question it at the time.

Your manager at your law firm, Gloria, tells you that, among other things, the firm is considering whether the Safety Director has grounds under s165(1)(g)to take disciplinary action in respect of Jim Bean. As part of that inquiry, Gloria asks you to answer this question about the declaration Jim made for the purposes of his application for a pilot licence: in so far as the declaration applied to Attachment B, did Jim make a 'false statement' within the meaning of s 165(1)(g) of the Marine Safety Act?

In the course of answering Gloria's question, interpret 'false statement' in s 165(1)(g) of the Marine Safety Act.

Assume 'False Statement' is the central unit of inquiry in the problem. Which of the following would you say the terms 'false statement' falls under and explain why with reference to the case scenario.

a)Lexical or semantic ambiguity

'potentiallyoccurswheneveraword has morethanone objectiveor dictionarymeaning':

b) Syntactic ambiguity

'Ithastodowith grammaticalstructure.Words occurin a particularorderandgrammaticalrelationshipsare established bythoseorderings. Thereisthepotentialityfor syntactic ambiguitywhenevera givenword ordermay allowformorethan one grammaticalrelationship.'

c) Referential indeterminacy: Schane 2006: 17

Oneis notsuretowhichthingaspeakerorwriteris referring.

d) Contextual ambiguity: Bennion 2008: 445-6

'... where there is conflict between the enactment and its internal or external context'