The central question posed in this thesis is why has the Queensland model of workers' compensation been so enduring? The legislation remained largely intact from 1916 until 2001, with the exception of the years from 1996 to 1998. This was so despite the fact the central feature of a state-controlled monopoly that underpinned this model was always potentially divisive in line with the variances between liberal-conservative traditions and social-democratic ideals that subsisted in broader political culture. In addressing this question of longevity, this thesis explores the capacity of an initially contentious piece of legislation to draw strong support from former opponents, and the argument is put forward that it is best explained through the development and operation of a policy community that fostered a shared set of core values relative to broad workers' compensation policy preferences. These core values were compulsory state monopoly, no fault insurance and full access to common law. Thus, the longevity of the legislation is attributed to the continued support by key stakeholders of these core values. The thesis also demonstrates that policy community relations deteriorated during the 1990s as governments responded to broader political pressures precipitated by reform agendas. Inconsistencies in core values and policy outcomes for each stakeholder emerged as governments attempted to assert unprecedented control over the direction of workers' compensation in order to meet broader political goals. The legislation was threatened as relations within the policy community proved unsustainable when existing core values were contested.