I am not saying that it is just or proper, but it is common for the strata committee or managing agent to deal (on the matter or bonds) with the owner of a premises rather than a tenant, for the simple reasons that the owner can easily be billed by the strata, whereas a tenant (i) may or may not have departed by the time the bill is processed; (ii) the tenant may receive the bill and choose not to pay and it is doubtful that a strata committee will hound a debt into the courts if the legal costs exceed the debt and (iii) the tenant has no direct relationship with the strata.
I do however see two options you could take to the strata committee:
(a) The by law refers to “residents”. One could argue that term refers to tenants when the owner lives elsewhere and that imposing a bond on an owner who lives elsewhere (and the bureaucratic nightmare that is associated with that) is unjust and could be challenged at NCAT; or
(b) Remove the by law and adopt an “understanding” amongst the owners that no bond will be taken when folk (owners or tenants) move into or out of a premises, but what will happen is that (i) the strata manager will arrange for before and after (the move) photos to be taken of common areas and if damage was caused, then the owner will be billed. How he/she deals with the tenant that caused the damage is his/her business. And in the event that no damage is sustained, then there is no need for any money to change hands b/w the any of the parties.
I am familiar with strata plans adopting option (b) and in my experience (b) and it works well.