❓ Hon Nick Goiran questions the Attorney General regarding amendments to Continuing Professional Development rules for barristers, specifically concerning mandatory training on discrimination, harassment, and wellbeing. The response outlines the consultation process and addresses concerns raised about inconsistencies.
AnsweredQoN 764Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Legal Profession Uniform Continuing Professional Development (Barristers) Amendment (Mandatory CPD) Rule 2025 , and I ask: (a) what was the catalyst for bringing about this amendment to the rules; (b) who was consulted prior to this amendment to the rules being finalised; (c) in reference to (b), did any person consulted raise any concerns; (d) if yes to (c), what were these concerns; (e) in reference to (d), has the finalised amendment rule addressed these concerns; and (f) if no to (e), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 December 2025
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General
Response time
8 days
(a) The Amendment Rule was made to address the lack of formal Continuing Professional Development requirements on discrimination, harassment and wellbeing.
(b) Initial consultation took place with designated local regulatory authorities in Uniform Law Jurisdictions, including the Legal Practice Board of WA. The draft Rule was subsequently released for public consultation.
(c) Yes.
(d) The Legal Practice Board of WA raised a risk of inconsistency between barrister and solicitor CPD requirements due to WA having a fused profession, and between participating and non-participating jurisdictions.
(e - f) The risk was not considered material and the Australian Bar Association, Legal Services Council and designated local regulatory authorities in the other participating jurisdictions are satisfied that the Amendment Rule is appropriate.
(b) Initial consultation took place with designated local regulatory authorities in Uniform Law Jurisdictions, including the Legal Practice Board of WA. The draft Rule was subsequently released for public consultation.
(c) Yes.
(d) The Legal Practice Board of WA raised a risk of inconsistency between barrister and solicitor CPD requirements due to WA having a fused profession, and between participating and non-participating jurisdictions.
(e - f) The risk was not considered material and the Australian Bar Association, Legal Services Council and designated local regulatory authorities in the other participating jurisdictions are satisfied that the Amendment Rule is appropriate.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.