I would have thought that the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 already covers owners doing things that affect common property.
I realise that the issue of making ‘future’ owners liable is different but I would have thought if the ‘owner’ remains the same couldn’t action be taken against the owner on the basis they contravened sections 116 (Owners, occupiers and other persons not to interfere with structure of lot or services to lot) and/or sections 62 to 65C (MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS, ALTERATION AND USE OF COMMON PROPERTY AND FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS) of the Act? Wouldn’t an OC be able to seek damages/restitution that way?
I am a big believer in the KISS prinicple (Keep It Simple Stupid). The passing of numerous bylaws can make understanding and enforcing of bylaws a nightmare. While I realise it is not always possible (smoking and parking bylaws being two example that spring to mind) it is better to operate on a few well understood and simple principles than have lots of unique bylaws.
I realise in practice every Strata Scheme has, according to it size and location/demographics, its own way of operating and therefore need for rules but sometimes it seems to me that OCs often feel the need to enact unique bylaws to solve problems without looking at the existing ones carefully enough.