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.

The only thing I currently do not understand is if I should stick with a unified or multi-layered approach for my essay. What would be the disadvantages of both ? i know that the unified approach only sees things through a single pov so it lacks room for flexibility . but what would be the disadvantage of a multi-layered approach ? secondly I would like to know what Kirby J believes should be adopted.

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.