Being Short of CPD and Lying About It Are Different Offences

Being short of your CPD is one thing. Ticking the box to say you were not is a different thing, with a different legal basis and a considerably worse outcome. Three regulators in two countries draw that line explicitly, and almost nobody writes about it.

Australia: two separate statutory grounds

Start with what an Australian health practitioner actually declares. Section 109 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law requires that a renewal application include a statement containing "a declaration by the applicant that—" among other things "the applicant has completed the continuing professional development the applicant was required by an approved registration standard to undertake during the applicant's preceding period of registration".

Now look at how the National Law treats failure. Section 112(2) lists grounds on which a Board may refuse renewal, and the two relevant ones are separate paragraphs:

"(c) if, during the applicant's previous period of registration, the applicant ... failed to complete the continuing professional development required by an approved registration standard for the profession; or"

"(d) if a statement made by the applicant in the applicant's annual statement was false or misleading in a material particular; or"

Paragraph (c) is the shortfall. Paragraph (d) is the declaration. They are independent, which means a practitioner who was short and said so faces one ground, and a practitioner who was short and said otherwise faces two.

The statute is published by the Queensland government, which hosts the National Law as scheduled to its 2009 Act.

And since 2022, registration can be withdrawn retrospectively

This is the provision that makes the distinction bite. Section 85A, inserted in 2022, provides:

"A National Board may withdraw the registration of a registered health practitioner registered in a health profession for which the Board is established if the Board reasonably believes the practitioner's registration was improperly obtained because the practitioner or someone else gave the Board information or a document that was false or misleading in a material particular."

Section 85C sets out the options once that finding is made: the Board may "withdraw the practitioner's registration", "refer the matter to a responsible tribunal", or "take other appropriate action under Part 8."

So a shortfall is a reason not to renew you going forward. A false declaration can unwind the registration you already hold, and send the matter to a tribunal.

One figure not to attach to this

You will see a $5,000 penalty quoted in connection with false information under the National Law. It does not apply here. That maximum attaches to false or misleading statements and documents given to an investigator or an inspector under the Schedule, not to the annual renewal statement.

The renewal consequence is refusal, withdrawal of registration and tribunal referral — which is materially more serious than a fine, but it is not a fine. Getting this right matters, because quoting a penalty that does not exist undermines the point you are making about one that does.

Alberta: a false statement pierces confidentiality

Alberta draws the same line through a different mechanism, and it is elegant. Participation in the continuing competence programme is confidential by statute — but not unconditionally.

From the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta's Continuing Competence Program Manual: information about participation "is confidential under section 52 of the HPA, unless the Competence Committee determines a referral to the Complaints Director is necessary, based on information obtained through the Continuing Competence Program that: • the regulated member has intentionally provided false or misleading information".

Read that carefully. The confidentiality that protects a struggling physician's competence record is the same confidentiality that lifts when the record is falsified. The protection is conditional on honesty.

Alberta also sets the longest retention period we have verified anywhere: "A regulated member must keep records in a form satisfactory to the Registrar, of any activities undertaken for the purpose of CPD for a period of six years." The manual is published by CPSA and was reissued in August 2026.

Victoria: the only regulator that publishes a count

Australia's Victorian legal regulator does something the others do not: it counts false declarations and publishes the number.

In the CPD year to 31 March 2026, of 446 solicitors audited, "The LIV found that 31 practitioners (7%) had incorrectly declared they were compliant with their CPD obligations." Three had still not rectified by 30 June 2026.

And the regulator states how it reads that behaviour: "Lawyers who don't meet CPD obligations, or falsely certify compliance, are likely to have other issues with their approach to legal practice." The full figures and the sanction that followed are in our guide to Victoria's CPD audit.

Seven per cent is the only published estimate we have found anywhere of how often the declaration is wrong. Treat it as one regulator's one-year figure for one profession rather than a general rate, but note that it is not zero and it is not trivial.

What follows from this

Three practical points.

If you are short, say so. Every regulator examined here treats voluntary disclosure as a rectification problem rather than a conduct problem — Victoria recorded 229 solicitors self-identifying as non-compliant, of whom 224 went on to comply, with no sanction attached to the disclosure itself.

Keep records for the longest period that applies to you, not the shortest. Alberta's six years against Ontario lawyers' roughly twelve months is a six-fold difference in the same profession family.

And if you manage people who declare on their own behalf, understand that the declaration is the exposure. A training gap is a cost. A false declaration is a registration risk, and in Australia it now reaches backwards.

The underlying Australian health requirements are in our guide to AHPRA CPD requirements, and for how a regulator that publishes its outcomes handles non-compliance, see Ontario's quality assurance programme.

This article quotes the National Law, the CPSA manual and the VLSB+C annual report as published. It is not legal advice; verify the current provisions before relying on them.