The common law statutory presumption states that in the absence of clear words to the contrary, legislation does not abrogate fundamental rights. While this presumption is long standing and its application is consistent, the significance of human rights (as opposed to fundamental rights) to the interpretation of legislation has proven to be more contentious. Some judges have referred to and applied human rights even though the relevant legislation was not enacted to give effect to Australia human rights obligations. Other judges have given human rights law a much more limited role, only referring to human rights when the legislation was enacted to give effect to Australia's human rights obligations.

What are some examples of the different approaches taken by judges to human rights in the statutory interpretation process.

Also, discuss recent statutory intervention in Queensland(Australia) that directly addresses the role of human rights in the statutory interpretation process.

Can you additionally provide advice on how if a question like this was asked on an exam for STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

(essay style answer) you would structure a response and what you would look for?