VH-XXX, a bold assertion in defence of an act which you did not witness.
For the benefit of my learned colleagues, the appropriate reference is para 6.2 of CAO 95.55 which reads:
6.2 For the purposes of subparagraph 5.1 (b), the conditions, 1 of which must be
complied with for an aeroplane to be flown at less than 500 feet above ground
level, are:
(a) the aeroplane must be flying in the course of actually taking-off or
landing; or
(b) the aeroplane must be flying:
(i) over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of
another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee
of whom, has given permission for the flight over the land at such a
height; and
(ii) at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from any person
(other than any person associated with the operation of the aeroplane)
and from any public road; or
(c) the pilot of the aeroplane must be engaged in flying training and the aeroplane must be flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of the Regulations, authorised
low flying.
(emphasis added).
VH-XXX, can you be certain that the miscreant has
NOT flown within 100m of
any person not associated with the operation of the aeroplane?
(And please don't try to tell me that Ace's spectators are "associated with the operation of the aeroplane") 
The original reporter states that the pilot performed
"...a number of low orbits over an admiring crowd at a local property..."
(emphasis added)
The RAAus has a long history of protecting its own
