What has the age of consent go to do with the age at which it is legal to show an adolescent naked in an arthouse film ?

It's interesting that whenever nudity in this film appears as a topic, people almost always focus on the nudity of the white girl and white boy, but seldom mention or seem to have a problem with the aboriginal nudity (either from David Gulpilil or any of the other aboriginals in this film, several of whom are small children).
Let's be brutally honest here I think most people who seem to focus on this while disregarding the aboriginal nudity are Caucasians (I myself am Caucasian).
As others have pointed out, all of the nudity in this film is non-sexualized and innocent. What we see in this film (among other things) are nude human beings, some of them very young, some of them very old.
What is wrong with that?
If you look at the trailer for this film contained on the DVD, at the time the film was released it had the endorsement of a parenting magazine, presumably for the film's educational potential regarding nature (including humankind's place in it).
Sincerely,
Todd
Opinions are like tattoos everybody has one.

It's your post that's "kind of f-cked up". And no, the age of consent in most of the world is not 18 (not that it has any bearing on non-sexualized nudity, mind you).
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

Because that never happens in real life.

I keep thinking about Blue Lagoon with Brooke Shields. Now that is a creepy movie in a way, and with the boy masturbating, and other odd situations. The nudity in the Walkabout wasn't so disturbing as that crazy dance with a boner. Or the massive number of creatures he kills.

There;s a scene where the 7 year old boy appears naked too. That's definitely a minor.

The age of consent in the UK and in most of Europe is also sixteen. The age at which people are legally allowed to pose for sexualised images is eighteen.
UK law (in accordance with international law) was tightened up in 2003 to deal with the proliferation of internet imagery. The bar was now definitely set at eighteen years of age for any actor or model in any form of photographic, web-based or cinematic nudity which is sexualised/erotic in intent and effect.
This quite obviously doesn't apply to
Walkabout
. When the film came up for retrospective review by the British Board of Film Classification a few months ago it was deemed to be ultimately harmless and perfectly legal for viewing by anybody aged twelve or over.
In 1969 when
Walkabout
was filmed on location in Australia, nobody saw anything harmful in Jenny Agutter and Lucien Roeg (the director's young son) being nude in the film. It's so transparently innocent and non-sexualised within the context of the film that it never ceases to amaze me that anybody could find anything
immoral
or harmful in it.

In most cases the age of consent in Australia has for the longest time and still remains 16. The boundaries around non-sexualised nudity are far far shy of the boundaries around age of consent. Get over yourself.

1: It wasn't illegal at the time (1969 when the film was shot, 1971 when it was released theatrically) to present adolescent nudity in this non-sexualised way and within this narrative context.
2: In an art-house feature such as this, it still isn't illegal to present adolescent nudity in a non-sexualised way and within a justifiable narrative context. This isn't pornography.
There is nothing '
dirty
' or troubling about the presentation of the naked human body in
Walkabout
. It is shown within the context of the film to be simply a fact of life, presented in a non-exploitative, tastefully handled way which should (in a reasonably healthy society) ruffle no feathers and cause no outrage.
There was a time in the 1960s and 70s when we seemed to be moving towards a healthier, less judgmental and less puritanical way of thinking and behaving.
Walkabout
is a product of that freer, more idealistic era when people from all walks of life could recognise the film as a major work of art, and not obsessively insist on sexualising aspects of the film which are plainly non-sexual in intent. The film itself clearly refutes that misunderstanding and misreading of it.