This paper presents a history of New Zealand's accident compensation scheme as a struggle between two competing normative paradigms that justify the core reform of the replacement of civil actions for victims of personal injury with a comprehensive no-fault scheme. Under ‘community insurance’, the scheme represents the community taking moral and practical responsibility for members who are injured in accidents, while for ‘compulsory insurance’ the scheme is a specific form of compulsory accident insurance. Understanding the history of the scheme in this way helps explain both the persistence of the scheme and important changes made to it by different governments.

This study examined return-to-work in a sample of 468 compensatable injury cases. These included amputees, brain damage, hearing loss, mental disorders, musculoskeletal problems, nervous system, paraplegia, sight loss and miscellaneous conditions. Around 35% returned to work. It was substantially higher for work-related injuries compared to motor vehicle accidents or general insurance claims. Those who underwent surgery or were admitted to hospital had higher return-to-work rates than those never attending hospital. Psychiatric adjustment factors were a major influence on low rates of return-to-work. Other social and demographic factors were considered (gender, age, city vs. rural location, whether a spinal injury was involved, family status, years of schooling, qualifications, job status at time of accident, occupation). Eight out of 17 possible factors were more statistically significantly related than the remainder to whether someone was working but the substantive limitations of even relevant pre- or post-accident indicators are outlined.