Naturists don't want exhibitionists at Uretiti | Northland News | Local News in Northland

Naturists are distancing themselves from naked men causing offence at Uretiti Beach in Northland and at Ladies Bay at St Heliers in Auckland.

"Naturists deplore exhibitionists. Get rid of them. We don't want them," New Zealand Naturist Federation president Pete Whalan said yesterday.

Naturist sun-lovers and non-naturists had been cohabitating on New Zealand beaches for many years, he said. There was no law prohibiting public nudity; what was illegal was lewd and offensive behaviour.

Mr Whalan said problems were being caused by inappropriate behaviour by people not associated with the Naturist Federation.

"Prancing exhibitionists" are claimed to have been shocking children with "gross" exposure of their genitals at Ladies Bay, once a nude swimming area for women but now with 80 per cent of bathers being male.

At Uretiti, naked men are reported to have been watching girls and swimming with children on the beach in front of the Department of Conservation campground, instead of keeping to the area 200m south of the camp where nudity has long been tolerated.

Whangarei and Kaipara police area controller Inspector Paul Dimery said he considered there probably were laws against public nudity.

Officially, police looked at every incident on its merits.

"If we get a complaint we look at the circumstances behind it and see if it is defined as indecent. If it is, we consider our options for dealing with it." Police accepted there were certain areas in the country where nudity was tolerated, Mr Dimery said.

The Northern Advocate received a complaint and letter to the editor after it published a report last week about the situation at Uretiti, which included campground manager Kevin McCleary saying there were no legal nude beaches in New Zealand.

Police had provided him with sections of the Summary Offences Act 1981 law on indecent exposure, warning a person faces up to three months in jail or a fine of up to $2000 if they "intentionally and obscenely expose any part of his or her genitals" in or within view of any public place.

People can defend themselves against prosecution under this law by establishing that they had reasonable grounds for believing they would not be observed.

A complainant who did not want to be named said that while it was factually correct for Mr McCleary to state there were no stipulated nude beaches in New Zealand, this was because it was legal to go nude on all beaches in New Zealand.

"While the behaviour of a few men may have been inappropriate and can dealt with by the law, this should not be used as an excuse to persecute the majority of the family-orientated naturist community as a whole," the complainant said.

A letter to the editor from Robert Lindsay, of Marsden Cove, said the Summary Offences Act referred only to behaviour, not attire or lack of it.

"It is perfectly normal, natural and definitely legal, to go nude as God and Nature intended on virtually any beach in New Zealand," Mr Lindsay wrote.