Thanks Sylvia. Much appreciated.

‘(1) A person in a public place must not wilfully expose his or her genitals, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.’

So am I to understand that this excludes males from walking naked on a public beach but not females, as female genitalia are not usually visible in the standing position?

It seems to indicate this, which of course runs contrary to principles of discrimination.

Ludvig,

Yes, the question of whether a woman would necessarily be exposing her genitals when walking along a beach is one that has been discussed in naturist circles. The legislation does not itself define "genitals" so it takes its everyday meaning, which begs the question of exactly what that is. This is again something that has not been tested because the law is a new one.

Unfortunately, the Anti-Discrimination Act itself is not helpful here, because it does not prevent Parliament from passing discriminatory laws. Parliament could, if it wished, ban women from going to beaches at all, though of course the political consequences would ensure that such a law was reversed shortly after the next election.

BTW, I think that the wilful exposure law was was introduced specifically to make nudity unlawful on defacto nude beaches, whatever the government claimed at the time. There was some slight precedent from NSW that nudity on a defacto nude beach was not offensive behaviour, so there was always the 'danger' that someone would use that defence in QLD, with the end result that the supposed prohibition of nudity even on defacto nude beaches would be found not to exist.

What happened in NSW after the local court acquittals concerning nudity on a defacto nude beach (Reef Beach) was that legisation was then passed expressly making nudity on beaches unlawful unless the local council permitted it. Needless to say, few councils have. Subsequently, after a change of government, five beaches (including three inaccessible and very small Sydney Harbour beaches were made clothing optional by statute.

Sylvia.

Rule of Law?

The right wording should really be: Road rules?
Why are we led to believe there is a Law covering these Rules?
Did the Honourable People of the Commonwealth of Australia ever vote for these rules of the road? Nah!
The so called Australian Constitution is not a real Australian Constitution made by and for the people of Australia, it was adopted and past-on from the British empire as an Act. We are still ruled by foreign agents who swear an Oath to the Queen of England whilst ruling the Australian people. The Queen does not want to know us, we are forgotten by the UN,(we should not be a member of the UN because we are not a true legal nation)We have no rights as far as Trade deals is concerned.

Any comments on this?

eftfnc

Of course there's a law regarding the Road Rules. If there were not then you could ignore them with impunity.

The rules are incorporated into the law of each jurisdiction either by an act of parliament, or by a regulation passed under an act of parliament.

For example, see

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rtatmrr1999607/s6.html

Sylvia.

Rex,

"The known circumstances/evidence of the crashes frequently positively identifies dangerously high speed as being either the cause or the main contributory cause.."

Perhaps this comment just needs clarification but speed sounds like the main cause of their crashes from the way I am interpreting "frequently" and the overall comment. If it is and if it comes before experience as a factor in crashes then something good may have come from the obvious bad of the road crashes. In all states that I have seen official stats for skills (termed "inexperience") of those drivers ranks above speed as a contributory factor in crashes. WA must have a much better driver training program then many parts of Australia. Other states need to know more about their training.

For example in Qld in overall crashes inexperience at 20% outranks speed at 5% as a crash contributor. The drivers who you are referring to are the least experienced so I would be surprised if the ranking for inexperience swapped places with speed. If the situation is otherwise in WA that is of keen interest.

Rex,

"The known circumstances/evidence of the crashes frequently positively identifies dangerously high speed as being either the cause or the main contributory cause.."

Perhaps this comment just needs clarification but speed sounds like the main cause of their crashes from the way I am interpreting "frequently" and the overall comment. If it is and if it comes before experience as a factor in crashes then something good may have come from the obvious bad of the road crashes. In all states that I have seen official stats for skills (termed "inexperience") of those drivers ranks above speed as a contributory factor in crashes. WA must have a much better driver training program then many parts of Australia. Other states need to know more about their training.

For example in Qld in overall crashes inexperience at 20% outranks speed at 5% as a crash contributor. This is overall not specifically new drivers. However the drivers who you are referring to are the least experienced so I would be surprised if the ranking for inexperience swapped places with speed for those drivers. If the situation is otherwise in WA that is of keen interest.