This paper draws on field study data to provide an examination of the condominium owner/manager relationship in the Australian tourism context. Although there has been considerable growth in tourism accommodation owned through strata-title, no research examining the somewhat idiosyncratic relationship between unit owners and resident managers has been found in the literature. The peculiar nature of the relationship underlines its significance as a context in which to apply the agency theoretical model. As Australian condominium resident unit managers provide letting and caretaker services for condominium unit owners, it appears that the relationship can be justifiably viewed as a principal-agent exchange (Mills, P.K., J. Business Res. 20 (1990) 31).The study specifically focuses on strata title condominiums located in major tourism regions. This sub-sector of the condominium management industry was chosen for study because it exhibits several key attributes distinguishing it from the non-tourist-based condominium sector. For example, two different parties represent the principal (resident owners and investor owners), also a significant proportion of a resident manager's work relates to the management of short-term holiday unit letting. In light of the particular agency relationship dynamics arising in large tourist-based condominium governance, several suggestions concerning the legal environment of the industry are provided. r

Much has been written by non-Indigenous Australians in the wake of the 1992 Mabo case following its rejection of terra nullius in Australia. What is surprising about this literature is the lack of discussion about sovereignty, which is a logical consequence of the Mabo decisionʼs conclusion that the basis for Crown sovereignty was incorrect. What little has been said about sovereignty since Mabo can be placed into two broad groups. The first calls for various forms of First Peoplesʼ sovereignties, and is made up almost exclusively of First Peoples scholars. The other group is dominated by non-Indigenous people who speak instead of citizenship, shared responsibility, native title, reconciliation, rights, selfmanagement, multiculturalism, colonisation and postcolonial theory. This article is directed to non-Indigenous scholars who write on these topics. It is a critique of their scholarship, notwithstanding its merit to the extent that literature questions injustice, dispossession, genocide, discrimination and colonial policy. The basis for this critique is that this scholarship fails to bring First Peoplesʼ sovereignties to the fore, and for this reason persists as colonial knowledge. To make this argument, the article identifies with feminist standpoint theory and Indigenous standpoint theory to contend that First Peoplesʼ sovereignties must be embraced by non-Indigenous scholars.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract