Elections and estate planning – choose wisely

Selecting an executor or trustee for your estate is much like voting in an election – both require assessing trust, competence, and long-term impact.

Decision-making is fundamental in both estate planning and voting in an election. In each case, you decide who takes control—whether of your personal assets after you pass away or of the country’s direction for the next term of government. Both processes involve assessing trustworthiness, competence, and alignment with your long-term goals.

In estate planning, an executor is responsible for carrying out your wishes as outlined in your will. This role requires organisational skills, legal knowledge, and financial literacy. Similarly, in an election, you vote to select a Member of Parliament whose duty is to represent your interests, create legislation, and manage public resources.

Just as you may choose a family member or professional trustee to manage your estate, when you vote you must decide the basis on which you will support a local candidate – party loyalty, personal connection, or perceived expertise. Both decisions mean assessing whether the chosen individual will act in the best interests of those they serve.

A trustee in a family trust holds significant power over assets and must act in the best interests of beneficiaries. Just as a poorly chosen trustee can mismanage assets, leading to financial disputes, an ineffective government can mismanage the economy, creating widespread instability. When you vote you weigh up policy experience, leadership style, and economic credentials before making their decision — just as you would when selecting a trustee.

In estate planning, an appointor has the ability to remove and replace a trustee, akin to how party power brokers or internal factions can influence leadership changes within political parties. A party’s internal leadership can shift over time, just as control of a family trust can be redirected by an appointor. In both cases, the choice of who wields this power has long-term consequences.

You are likely to hold money in superannuation. Your binding superannuation death benefit nomination (if made) determines who will receive your superannuation upon your passing. The implications when making such a nomination are just like those when casting your vote.. Failing to do so carefully and after full consideration is abdicating responsibility and leaves things to chance.

You might choose to appoint co-executors or co-trustees to ensure a sharing of power and responsibility in estate management, in an electoral sense, a bit like having a government formed by a coalition of parties and/or independents. While having multiple decision-makers can prevent the concentration of power in one individual,

it can also lead to internal conflict—whether in managing an estate or governing a country. So, you might consider your candidate’s ability to negotiate and cooperate when deciding how to vote, just as you’d consider compatibility when choosing co-executors.

Estate planning often includes backup successors—alternative executors, trustees, or appointors in case your primary choice is unable or unwilling to serve. This is similar to our preferential voting system, where voters rank other candidates in case their first choice does not win.

Choosing the wrong executor, trustee, appointor, or beneficiary can lead to disputes, delays, and legal battles — just as electing an ineffective government can lead to economic downturns, policy failures, or leadership instability. In both cases, you must weigh your options carefully, consider long-term impacts, and seek professional advice if needed.

Whether deciding who controls your personal estate or who governs the country, you face similar challenges: assessing competence, trustworthiness, and alignment with your personal values.

Want the Wills & Estates updates delivered straight to your inbox? Click here to subscribe.