Trauma-Informed Reform: Beyond the Buzzword

“Trauma-informed” has become a policy buzzword. It appears in strategy documents, political speeches, articles and reform agendas across Australia and beyond. But when we look closer, the question becomes: are our reforms genuinely trauma-informed — or simply buzzword-compliant?

When I worked in historical abuse claims, being trauma-informed wasn’t optional. It was essential. Survivours entrusted us with some of the most painful experiences of their lives. The way we designed processes could either reduce harm — or unintentionally compound it.

I thought I knew what trauma-informed in these matters was when working on defence matters. We worked in a way that was deliberate and calculated to try and minimise any re-trauma. But changing sides to plaintiff personal injury taught me so much more as we worked with a different kind of already compounded trauma.

• It meant asking the right questions at the right time, in the right way.

• It meant avoiding unnecessary repetition of traumatic details just to “tick the box” of evidence gathering - this meant strategically thinking about when to get an IME, when and how to get a detailed statement from the client, in a way I never considered before.

• It meant creating spaces that were physically and emotionally safe — and connecting people with counselling, not just legal advice. This meant plants, cushions, coffee, biscuits, artwork and colour in a legal environment. It meant bucking the ‘norm’ of what was expected from a lawyer in their office.

Those lessons have stayed with me. Now, working in legislative reform, I keep coming back to the same question:

How do we design reform processes that don’t just look good on paper — but actually reduce harm and create more responsive systems?

Why It Matters

Legislation is not neutral. The way we write laws and design systems can either build resilience or reinforce cycles of harm. When reforms are trauma-informed, they open pathways to trust, safety, and recovery. When they aren’t, they risk retraumatising the very people they’re meant to serve.

Four Pillars of Trauma-Informed Reform

1. Collaborative Design

The people most impacted by the law should shape how it is written and implemented. That means involving diverse stakeholders, not just formal experts.

For example, in New Zealand’s family violence reforms, survivors were engaged throughout the design process — not as a token consultation exercise, but as partners in shaping solutions. That input led to changes that made the justice system less intimidating and more responsive to victims’ needs.

2. Equip the People Doing the Work

Policy teams, lawyers, and decision-makers need more than technical expertise. Trauma-informed reform requires understanding the psychological and emotional dimensions of trauma.

In Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation process highlighted the importance of cultural safety and emotional intelligence in policy design. Officials weren’t just expected to draft technical frameworks; they were trained to listen, respond, and acknowledge lived experiences with care.

When reform teams are equipped in this way, the policies they create are more grounded — and more human.

3. Check the Impacts, Not Just the Intentions

Good intentions aren’t enough. Reforms must build in ways to monitor real-world impact. Are they achieving their goals? Are they avoiding unintended harm?

For instance, trauma-informed court models in parts of the United States track not only case outcomes but also participant experiences — such as whether survivors felt safe, heard, and supported. This feedback loop ensures reforms adapt to reality, not just aspiration.

4. Define Measurable Outcomes

Trauma-informed reform must be measurable. Success should be defined from the start: are outcomes clear, realistic, and trackable by the people delivering policy on the ground?

Too often, evaluation frameworks are disconnected from lived experience. If the measures can’t capture whether harm has been reduced, the reform risks becoming performative rather than transformative.

The Integrity Test

Trauma-informed reform is not flashy. It doesn’t grab headlines. But it matters deeply.

It’s an integrity test for government and legal systems: are we prepared to design reforms that truly prioritise safety, trust, and recovery? Or will we settle for policies that look progressive in reports but fall short in practice?

If we get it right, we strengthen not just systems — but resilience, healing, and justice itself.