The aged care regulator has told the sector where it will look harder this year: rights in practice, sexual safety, changed behaviours and culturally safe care. Here's what each priority means under the strengthened Standards, and a calm way to check where you stand.
The Accorda Team · 27 October 2026
Most of the time, providers have to guess where the regulator's attention is heading. Not this year. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has published four sector risk priorities for 2026–27. These are the areas that will get extra regulatory attention, guidance and engagement over the next twelve months.
That isn't a reason to panic. It's useful information. The Commission itself says providers should consider how the priorities apply to their services, and use them for self-reflection, risk management and continuous improvement. In other words, it has handed you a ready-made self-check.
Here's what the four priorities are, what each one means under the strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards, and how to tell whether you're ready.
For 2026–27, the Commission has named:
Aged care rights in practice
Sexual safety and sexual rights
De-escalating changed behaviours
Culturally safe care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people delivered by mainstream providers
The Commission says sector risk priorities let it target the areas where action can have the greatest impact on the safety, wellbeing and rights of older people. The priorities will shape its education, monitoring and regulatory activity, and it will take enforcement action where there are significant or unmanaged risks. More detail on its approach is due in the coming months.
None of these are new obligations. Each one is already written into the strengthened Quality Standards, which have been in force since 1 November 2025. What has changed is the spotlight.
A published priority list is the closest thing the sector gets to the regulator showing its hand. It would be a waste not to use it.
The key words are "in practice". Most providers have the Statement of Rights in their documents. The question is whether it shapes what happens on a Tuesday afternoon.
Under Outcome 1.2, a provider must understand the rights of individuals under the Statement of Rights and have practices in place to act compatibly with it. Outcome 1.3 goes further, requiring providers to support people to exercise choice, make decisions with support when they need it, and exercise dignity of risk. Action 1.3.5 talks about enabling positive risk-taking that promotes a person's autonomy and quality of life.
The Commission is researching how providers apply rights-based care and how older people experience it, including how workers balance rights against risk.
A quick self-check
Can your frontline staff explain, in their own words, what a resident's or client's rights mean for their daily work?
When someone chooses something with a risk attached, is the conversation recorded, along with how you agreed to manage it?
Do your policies on choice, consent and decision-making support reflect the Statement of Rights, or just mention it?
This priority has two halves, and both matter.
The first is safety. Action 1.2.1 requires a system to recognise, prevent and respond to violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation and discrimination. Unlawful sexual contact or inappropriate sexual conduct is also one of the incident types reportable under the Serious Incident Response Scheme (SIRS).
The second is rights. Action 1.1.3 recognises a person's right to intimacy and sexual and gender expression. In residential care, Action 7.1.6 says people can maintain relationships of choice free from judgement, including intimate relationships, and engage in sexual activity.
Providers who focus only on the first half can end up restricting people unfairly. Providers who focus only on the second can miss real harm. The standard asks you to hold both.
A quick self-check
Do you have a sexual safety policy that covers both prevention and respect for sexual rights, and have your staff signed off on it?
Would a worker know how to recognise and report inappropriate sexual conduct, and that it may be a SIRS reportable incident?
If a resident wanted privacy with a partner, would your team know how to support that respectfully?
Changed behaviours, often linked to dementia, delirium or other cognitive impairment, are one of the most common pressures on care teams. The priority is about responding well, not just managing the moment.
The Standards are specific here. Outcome 5.6 says the provider identifies situations and events that may lead to changes in behaviour, and implements processes to identify and minimise them and to respond to their causes. Action 3.2.6 requires a system for caring for people living with dementia. Action 2.9.6 lists caring for people living with dementia as core training for every worker.
Where restrictive practices are used, Action 3.2.7 says they must be a last resort, in the least restrictive form, for the shortest time needed, with informed consent, and monitored and regularly reviewed.
A quick self-check
When a resident's behaviour changes, does your team look for the trigger (pain, noise, a change in routine) before reaching for a response?
Are behaviour-related incidents recorded consistently enough that you could spot a pattern across a month?
Can you show that every worker has current training in dementia care and de-escalation?
This priority is aimed squarely at mainstream providers, not just specialist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services.
The Standards set clear expectations. Action 1.1.2 asks providers to ask and record whether a person identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. It also requires care that is culturally safe, trauma aware and healing informed, and support for connection to community, culture, Country and Island Home. Action 2.1.2 asks providers to partner with people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander so services are accessible and culturally safe. Action 2.9.6 includes culturally safe, trauma-aware and healing-informed care in every worker's core training.
Cultural safety is defined by the person receiving care, not by the provider. So the best evidence is rarely a policy. It's what people tell you, and what you changed because of it.
A quick self-check
Do you consistently ask, and record, whether someone identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?
Have you partnered with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or organisations on how your service is delivered?
Is cultural safety training current for every worker, and can you prove it?
You don't need a separate program for each priority. Fold them into the systems you already have.
Add them to your risk register. Each priority is a candidate risk. Rate it honestly for your service, name an owner and set a review date.
Check your policies against them. For each priority, ask whether a current policy covers it, and whether staff have signed off on the latest version.
Look at your incident and complaints data. Behaviour-related incidents, sexual safety concerns or complaints about respect and choice are your earliest signals.
Close the training gaps. Three of the four priorities link directly to the core training in Action 2.9.6. Know who is current and who isn't.
Record what you did. When the Commission's further guidance arrives, you'll want to show you were already acting on the priorities, with dates.
Accorda doesn't deliver care, run your training or decide what culturally safe care looks like for the people you support. Those are human responsibilities, and they should stay that way.
What it does is help you show the work.
Policies that are current, and proven. Keep your rights, sexual safety, changed behaviours and cultural safety policies in one versioned library, with staff sign-offs on every new version. The AI Policy Writer can produce a tailored first draft for you to review and adopt.
Incidents caught and sorted. Quick incident reporting with triage that flags whether an incident looks reportable, so a sexual safety concern doesn't get treated as routine. A person always makes the final call.
A risk register that stays alive. Add each priority as a risk, assign an owner and keep the review history alongside your incidents and complaints.
A heads-up when things move. Regulatory Radar watches for regulatory changes, such as the Commission's promised further guidance, and flags which of your policies they may affect.
Evidence on demand. Records are timestamped and tamper-evident, and come together in an audit evidence pack when you need them.
You do the care. Accorda helps you prove it holds up to the regulator's priorities.
Pick the priority that worries you most. Then ask:
Which policy covers it, and when did staff last sign off on it?
What does our incident and complaints data say about it over the last three months?
Who owns it, and what are we doing about it this quarter?
If you can answer all three, you're ahead of most of the sector. If you can't, you've just found your starting point.
Want to see how Accorda keeps policies, incidents and risks in one place? Book a short demo or start a free 14-day trial at accorda.com.au.
Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission — Aged Care Quality Bulletin #8-2026
Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission — Serious Incident Response Scheme
This article is general information only, current as at October 2026, and is not legal or compliance advice. Regulatory requirements can change.
Start today
Try Accorda free for 14 days. Every feature, no credit card, no auto-charge.
