Hi, I want help with this question and , I do not understand how to answer this as this essay has to be quite critically evaluated and this question is based on the Australian constitution.

I currently do not understand is if I should just stick with a unified or multi-layered approach for my essay or if I should add Purposivism, Contextualism and Textualism.

I would like to know what Kirby J believes should be adopted because,

This question is also slightly confusing is Kirby for or against a multi-layer interpretation? a quick google search says that kirby was for the multilayer method but this question has me confused

In SGH v Commissioner of Taxation,1 Gummow J stated, "Questions of construction of the Constitution are not to be answered by the adoption and application of any particular, all-embracing and revelatory theory or doctrine of interpretation." While many Justices of the High Court have championed such a view, others, such as Kirby J, have argued for the adoption of a single, unified approach to the interpretation of the Constitution.

You are required to critically analyse the two approaches to interpretation, for and against a unified approach, and clearly state and justify which of the two approaches you favour. In your argument, briefly explain the different interpretive techniques adopted by past and present Justices of the High Court and explain which, if any, of these techniques Kirby J believes should be the adopted by the High Court.