Advance Care Planning: Five Names, Nine Statutes, and Not One of Them Is Commonwealth

‘Advance care directive’ is not one thing in Australia. It is five different legal names, under nine statutes, across eight jurisdictions — and not one of those statutes is Commonwealth.

Advance Care Directive in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Advance Health Directive in Queensland and Western Australia. Health Direction in the ACT. Advance Personal Plan in the Northern Territory, which is the only jurisdiction with two governing Acts. And in New South Wales, no statutory instrument at all.

The two most populous eastern states take exactly opposite positions on the same question. In New South Wales only a common law directive binds, and because there are no formal requirements for one, it can be made orally — a competent person, acting voluntarily, saying what they refuse has made a legally binding directive with no form, no witness and no signature. In Queensland a common law directive is not binding at all; only the statutory Advance Health Directive under the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 is. The same spoken sentence binds in Sydney and does not bind in Brisbane.

AND HERE IS THE SENTENCE THAT TRAVELS WITH THAT FINDING, EVERY TIME. THE FRAGMENTATION IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE A DIRECTIVE, OR TO TREAT THEM AS UNRELIABLE, OR TO DECIDE THE LAW IS TOO COMPLICATED TO BOTHER WITH. In every jurisdiction a person can record what they want and appoint somebody to speak for them, and in every jurisdiction a recorded wish is the best available evidence of what that person wanted — it guides the substitute decision-maker, it belongs in the record, and it is the reason the conversation happened. The response to fragmentation is one fact: find out which jurisdiction you are in and what its law calls the document.

Eleven modules. The whole map and the five instrument names · New South Wales and Queensland worked side by side · the five different things people call ‘an advance care plan’ · capacity as presumed, decision-specific and time-specific · the substitute decision-maker, who is a ‘person responsible’ in NSW, a ‘statutory health attorney’ in Queensland and a ‘medical treatment decision maker’ in Victoria · when a directive operates, and why it does nothing while the person can still answer · the conversation, its openings and its rules · finding, reading and recording a directive · what to do when it is unclear, disputed or does not fit · and where the line is.

What this programme deliberately will not give you. It states the name of the instrument and the name of the statute in each jurisdiction. It states no witnessing requirement, no form requirement, no age, no capacity test, no revocation procedure and no substitute decision-maker hierarchy for any jurisdiction — because none of that was read. Both authoritative sources (end-of-life.qut.edu.au and advancecareplanning.org.au) returned HTTP 403 to retrieval, so the map’s ‘common law binding?’ column is left blank for WA, SA, the ACT and the NT rather than guessed. It makes no claim about whether a directive made in one State binds in another, and it says nothing at all about voluntary assisted dying.

7.5 CPD hours, measured from the content: 440 minutes across eleven modules, programme reading and assessment. 60-item summative assessment, 80% to pass, 2 attempts. Sources read 28/09/2026.