Temporarily fixed to the land

How You Get Attention (and Action) From Those in Power (STATE LEVEL)

Without being bounced between departments or just pontifically quoted current legislation

Ministers and Premiers do not act because something is logical, fair, or even well-researched.

They act when:

1. An issue presents political risk if ignored
    
2. A solution is offered that does not expose them or councils to blame
    
3. The problem is framed as inevitable, not optional
    
4. They can see a clear, bounded decision they can make
    

Your goal is not to “convince” them tiny houses are good.
Your goal is to make inaction the harder option.

Why you’re currently getting pontifical replies

Because your letters are likely triggering this internal response:

“This is complex, controversial, and outside current frameworks.
Best option: refer to existing legislation and move on.”

That happens when:

• You ask why instead of what decision is required
   
• You focus on council behaviour instead of state responsibility
   
• You sound like you want an exception, not a framework
   
• You don’t clearly state the consequence of doing nothing
   

The single most important shift you must make

❌ Don’t ask them to “allow” tiny houses

✅ Ask them to give councils cover so they can assess your application

This reframes the issue from:

“Lifestyle advocacy”      to:      “Governance failure creating unmanaged risk”

That is a language Ministers understand.

CORRUPTION & EMOTIONS!

Be aware that if your letter is all about you and your medical conditions, and your emotional hard luck story.....

 IF AN OFFICIAL WERE TO ACT based on that, it is called CORRUPTION!   

 As hard as it is - keep it UN-Emotional and void of too many personal details.  

You are welcome to add an attachment that is headed: Personal Story and Why I am vested in this action - it may be a miracle that the receiver has an actual heart, and takes the matter on board as a result! 

The 5 Rules for Writing to Power (QLD-specific - but can be adapted to any state)

1. Never ask for an explanation of current law

They will always respond with:“Under the current legislation…

”Instead, say:  “I am aware of the current legislation. It is no longer fit for purpose.”

This removes their escape hatch.

2. Frame the problem as already happening

You are not asking them to create a new reality — you are asking them to manage an existing one.

Use language like:

• “Thousands of Queenslanders are already living this way”  
• “Councils are already enforcing inconsistently”  
• “The State is currently exposed”  

This turns the issue from hypothetical to urgent.

3. Make councils the victims, not the villains

This is critical.  

Say clearly:  “Councils are not the problem. They are operating without state direction.”

This immediately positions the State as the only actor who can resolve it. Stopping to carousel of passing the buck back and fourth.

4. Present a safe, bounded solution

Ministers fear opening Pandora’s boxes.You must show:

• This applies to a defined category (e.g. THOWs, built Off Site, less than 45sqm)  
• Under defined conditions 
• With clear guardrails 

You are not asking for deregulation — you are asking for regulated clarity.

5. End with a decision, not a discussion

Never end with:        “I would appreciate your thoughts”

End with:   “This requires a Ministerial decision”

That signals seriousness.

What ACTUALLY gets a Minister’s attention?

One or more of the following must be present:

✔ Risk to councils  

✔ Risk of inconsistent enforcement  

✔ Risk of media exposure  

✔ Risk of court challenges  

✔ Risk of being seen as obstructing housing supply  

✔ Comparison with other states (NSW, WA, ACT)  

✔ A clear, simple action they can announceYou already have most of this ammunition.

Recommended Targets (QLD)You should write separate but aligned letters to:

• Premier of your state
• Minister for Housing 
• Minister for Planning 
• Minister for Local Government 
• Your local State MP 
• LGAQ (Local Government Association of Queensland) 
• 
  

CC them strategically so each knows others are watching.

The Structure That Avoids Bureaucratic Deflection

Use this exact structure. 

1. Opening: Disarm the bureaucracy (2–3 sentences)

Acknowledge the law — then remove it as an excuse.

“I am writing regarding the growing number of Queenslanders living, or attempting to live, in tiny houses and caravans on private land. I am fully aware that under current Queensland planning law these structures are not recognised as dwellings. That is precisely the problem.”

This stops the “current legislation is....” reply dead.

2. Define the real issue (State failure, not council behaviour)

“Local councils are being forced to manage a housing reality without a state framework to support them. As a result, councils are exposed, residents are confused, and enforcement is inconsistent.”

This makes it the State’s mess to clean up.

3. Describe the inevitable outcome if nothing changes

This is where attention sharpens.

“Without state-level direction, Queensland is already seeing widespread ‘off-radar’ living, selective enforcement, neighbour disputes, and councils placed in legally vulnerable positions. This is not sustainable and will escalate.”

You are predicting consequences, not threatening.

4. Introduce the concept of “cover” (this is the hook)

“Councils are not asking for permission to break the law. They are waiting for the State to provide clear legislative cover — as has occurred in NSW, WA and the ACT — so they can regulate tiny homes safely, consistently and transparently.”

This reframes everything.

5. Offer the solution — narrowly and safely

Do not ask for wholesale reform.

“This does not require deregulation. It requires a limited, state-led framework that:

• defines tiny dwellings (THOWs - set out the definition here),
   
• sets minimum health and safety standards,
   
• and enables councils to permit permanent occupation under clear conditions.”
   

Ministers like lists.

6. Name the decision that must be made

Be explicit.

“This issue cannot be resolved at council level. It requires a Ministerial decision to introduce a state planning instrument, regulation or directive that gives councils the authority and protection they currently lack.”

That sentence matters more than anything else you write.

7. Close with inevitability + leadership

End on leadership, not pleading.

“Tiny house living is no longer fringe, theoretical or avoidable. The choice for Queensland is whether this continues unmanaged and underground, or whether the State provides leadership and clarity. Councils are ready. The community is already there. What is missing is state cover.”

Follow up (give them at least 14 days, they are busy after-all) - and use this ONE LINE:

• “I note my correspondence has likely been referred internally.   This matter requires Ministerial consideration, not departmental explanation.”

STATE LEVEL:  

1. PRIMARY SEND (separate emails, same core letter)

These should be separate emails, not one big blast.

A. Premier of Queensland

To: Premier
CC (in this order):

1. Chief of Staff – Premier
    
2. Director-General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC)
    
3. Minister for Housing
    
4. Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
    
5. Your local State MP
    

Why:

• Signals this is a whole-of-government issue, not a niche complaint
   
• Forces DPC awareness (they control cross-departmental coordination)
   
• Puts your local MP on notice early
   

B. Minister for Housing / Planning

To: Minister for Housing
CC (in this order):

1. Chief of Staff – Housing Minister
    
2. Director-General, Department of Housing
    
3. Director-General, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP)
    
4. Assistant Minister (if applicable)
    
5. Shadow Minister for Housing (optional but powerful)
    
6. Your local State MP
    

Why:

• Ministers read what their Chief of Staff flags
   
• DGs care because this implies policy risk and escalation
   
• Shadow Minister CC quietly increases accountability

IN QLD, Councils need 'Cover'.  Get their support so they also advocate up the departments to State level, with a letter like THIS:     (Important: Who to send it to and who to CC is below)

This email (Non Emotional)  is designed to:

• Invite support (not demand it)
   
• Remove blame from councils
   
• Position State “cover” as the solution

Dear [CEO Name],

I am writing as part of a broader Queensland-wide advocacy effort focused on the increasing number of residents seeking to live in tiny houses as a long-term housing solution.

Many councils, including yours, are currently constrained by planning frameworks that classify most tiny houses on wheels as caravans, making permanent or semi-permanent occupation on private land difficult or impossible — even where there are no amenity, infrastructure, or neighbourhood impacts.

In discussions across the sector, a consistent message has emerged:

Councils are not opposed to tiny houses — but they require clear state-level direction or legislative cover to act.

New South Wales has demonstrated that when the State provides a framework, councils are empowered to respond locally without bearing disproportionate risk. Queensland councils currently do not have that same protection.

I am writing to ask whether your council would be willing to support, in principle, a Queensland State framework or policy position that:

• Allows councils discretion to approve long-term occupation of tiny houses on private land, and
• Provides clarity around planning, health, and compliance expectations, rather than relying on caravan classifications alone.
• 
  

This request is not for council to act outside existing legislation, but rather to support the State Government providing the cover councils need to respond to housing pressures responsibly and locally.

If your council is open to this conversation, even at a policy or advocacy level, that support would be invaluable in demonstrating to State Government that this issue is statewide, not isolated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,
[Your Full Name]
[Organisation / Role]
[Phone / Email]

The Correct CC Structure (Repeat this for each individual Council)

For each individual council, send one email addressed to the CEO, 

with the following CC order: 

• Chief Executive Officer (CEO) – Council
   

1. Mayor
    
2. Director / General Manager – Planning & Development
    
3. Your division Councillor (if applicable)
    
4. Minister for Housing (QLD)
    
5. Minister for State Development, Infrastructure & Planning (QLD)
    

• CEOs see this as governance, not a complaint
   
• Mayors see a housing risk
   
• Planners see political visibility
   
• Ministers see statewide consistency emerging
   
• No one can claim they weren’t aware
   

⚠️ Do not CC other councils together. One council = one email.

Finding the Email Addresses

All can be found on Google

 Example: Google: "Email address of CEO of [enter LGA here]  Council". 

Who NOT to CC (important)

Avoid CC’ing:

• Generic departmental inboxes
   
• Multiple planners across councils
   
• Media (at this stage)
   
• Federal MPs (yet)
   

This keeps it serious, not noisy

Often you will get sympathetic, 'Of course we understand and we are listening" responses, but they then mention these words: 

"SAFE HOUSING".  

These have become the most dreaded words in Tiny House Land! 

This basically means they are giving you a polite NO and are using the fact that few Tiny Houses on Wheels are ABLE to meet the current NCC requirements as their excuse.  

(Did you know, their own software "natHers", starts at 50sqm and tiny houses FAIL before they can get through the software requirements!)

I have been working on the letter - PDF Below - as a Submission, asking for a simple CHECKLIST to be devised to address this issue, which would mean most (not all) tiny houses would be able to be Compliant, and deemed to Satisfy.  

It is essential that this Checklist addresses:

•  Tiny Houses On Wheels, 
• less than 40sqm (because the NCC board have already proven that requirements can be met from 50sqm upwards) - 
• and that the tiny house is built entirely off-site (it can not be erected, installed, folded out etc On Site).

This is entirely different advocacy work, and needs a lot of in-depth knowledge on planning regulations in your area.  Briefly, Villages are considered to come under a Caravan Park Licence.

Here is what it would look like:  

Buy acres of land.  

Invest 5 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars on 'change of use DA", and caravan park licence application.  

These applications are usually met immediately with the local neighbourhood OBJECTING.  They are worried about 'rif raf', and extra traffic, and amenities and the value of their properties - these are your Nimby enemies.  All their concerns need to be overcome.

Implement infrastructure including waste, toilets and water and power. It 'could' even mean building or widening roads In and Out of the park (they will bring up emergency evacuation egress).

If you have not lost your mind by the time this has been done, you are at least deeply out-of-pocket.  

So the question is: - how are you going to make a return on the money and time spent?  

It is unlikely people are going to spend $millions and then charge tiny house owners $50pw for a spot! 

Financial Viability is something you need to address, before writing to councils.

TIP: Land is not held by GOVERNMENT.  It's held by institutions and CHURCHES.  Wesley Mission and similar church organisations have access to more land than any council could offer you, and they have deep pockets too. Joining up with such an organisation could be very fruitful partnership.

Co-Housing, 

I possibly know the LEAST about this - so I will recommend contacting Michelle Cook who is well connected in this field: Ohana Tiny House Community Project

The Tiny Home expo organisers INVITE Councillors, Town planning departments, Mayors, and government officials to attend an expo - INCOGNITO.  

They do not need to speak in the speaker hall, nor announce anything or address the public.  

Simply come and LEARN....

- view the houses people want to live in,  and talk to builders of tiny houses - are they SAFE?

- listen to people trying to understand WHY councils are not opening their arms to tiny houses, 

and the pure frustration people are experiencing trying to get answers from council.

- Chat with advocates and industry leaders on potential policies and the future of tiny houses.

ANY Minister,  Councillor, Mayor, Townplanner etc can simple email me for a complimentary invite to any expo:

phae@tinyhomesexpo.com.au

Initially, I agree, the idea of 'allowing' JUST 2 years is ridiculous.  WHO wants to buy a $100k+ tiny house so you can get permission to live in it for a couple of years? It's security - LONG TERM - that housing is all about.

However, years of advocating to Government has shown me that the two year pilot idea might be the only way forward.  By allowing Tiny Houses to stay as caravans (which are temporary housing), the EASIEST way for local council and State Government to go forward is to allow tiny houses... but for a temporary period.

The TWO years is simply because there is already legislation in place (for things like SHOUSE sheds), and a two year permit sits nicely with existing frameworks. 

The good news is that this DOES NOT mean that on day 731, you are booted off and evicted.  Not at all.  This is simply a 'get out of jail card' for the council IF THEY NEED IT!  So if after two years there are considerable problems, neighbourhood impacts, environmental disaster... they have an EXIT PLAN.  In ALL instances of 2 year occupancy permits currently in Australia, none have been automatically evicted after two years.

A Two year policy allows the local council to get to know what impacts Tiny Houses have in their region. It allows them to tweak how regulations could look. It gives them some time to understand who and where the tiny houses are being used. It is a 'gateway' to better regulation ideas in the future. 

No One should be worried that a two year plan means they are moving every two years, or that they are evicted after two years.  This was recently confirmed on our stage by the Mayor of Shell Harbour himself, who has spearheaded a Pilot for his region and a change in the NSW LEP that any NSW council can use for assessing tiny houses in their own LGA.

 It is not perfect, and we would prefer that they 'word' the pilot - 2 year (renewable) permit.  

However, the word 'renewable' may be taken that the permit is automatically entitled to be renewed, so council are reluctant to use this wording.  

Once again, Tiny House circles must 'un-muddy' the greyness of regulation that is put before us! 

Below is a sample Policy.  Note, the Tiny house is not FIXED to the land. 

NOTE: There is to be no installation, erection, building works, or folding-out of the house. 

This is because imported expandables are not part of Tiny House advocacy. 

There have been instances of Asbestos, widespread mould and condensation issues, one huge accident while 'unfolding' - raising questions of site safety and insurance during installation, leaking roofs, Chinese plumbing not fit for withstanding Australian water pressure, rusting, insulation issues, and generally are considered not fit for purpose, in relation to LIVING in an expandable.  

Furthermore, their size and shape means they are capable of being a traditional dwelling, (a Modular)-  and therefore, CAN meet the NCC if the importer takes the measures to address the issues. The fact that they can go through the already established planning pathways means there should be no need to create new permits for these particular buildings.