Q30 Figure 34 – Principals who considered how multiple appointed decision-makers would work together 77% 11% Yes No 6% 6% Not applicable (e.g. they are appointed to make different decisions) Unsure Q.30. Did you consider how your multiple decision-makers would work together to make decisions? Base: Principals who had more than one appointed decision-maker n=232 The majority of principals (76%) reported having just one FEPOA and a quarter (24%) had more than one FEPOA. Q27 Those with more than one FEPOA were more likely to be: • younger than 65 years old (80%) • principals who had appointed more than one decision-maker (54%). Figure 35 – Number of FEPOA agreements 76% 18% 6% 1 2-3 4 or more Q.27. How many FEPOA agreements do you have? Base: Nat rep principals n=323 Common reasons for having more than one FEPOA included having different FEPOAs for different decisions (37%), for the circumstance where the original appointed decision-maker could no longer perform the role (35%), or because they were advised to by a legal or financial professional (33%). Two in five (19%) had multiple FEPOAs to cover multiple states and/or territories. This may suggest a level of confusion about FEPOA mutual recognition across jurisdictions in Australia. However, the precise motivation for principals having multiple FEPOAs is unclear and the actual reasons for this may warrant further investigation. Despite prior testing of the survey, the Commission also does not rule out the possibility of potential confusion or misinterpretation of the relevant survey question by respondents, in which case, this finding should be treated with caution. 44 Empowering futures: A national survey on the understanding and use of financial enduring powers of attorney