Adjourned debate on second reading.
 (Continued from 8 July. Page 974.)
 
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I support this Bill, and my contribution will be very brief. This Bill is identical to a Bill that was introduced into this place back in October 1994. I spoke to it on 26 October 1994 and I will repeat what I had to say there. There has been a tendency particularly on the part of the Government in the areas of stress or mental incapacity (and they do not necessarily mean precisely the same thing) to attempt to deny WorkCover's responsibility for those matters. It must be recognised that, although stress and mental incapacity are injuries that perhaps cannot always be seen in a psychological sense (it is easy enough to see a broken arm or a cut off finger), it does not make those injuries any less real. They are just far more difficult in terms of diagnosis, although clearly some physical injuries, for example, back injuries, also present some difficulties in relation to diagnosis. Once one takes the view that they are legitimate injuriesóand I doóI would argue that they need to be treated in exactly the same fashion as any other injury. As I said earlier, the Government has clearly tried to treat those sorts of injuries differently. It has tried to remove responsibility of workers' compensation in areas of stress and is opposing lump sum compensation in this area. Clearly, I do not share that view.
 I believe that what the Opposition is doing is correct and, from a philosophical position, I support what it is doing and therefore support the Bill. That Bill, which is the same as the one we are currently debating, was passed by this place and went to the other place, where it failed. The numbers in the Lower House have changed, so I think it is worthwhile for this matter to be addressed again, and I hope that in this case it will pass not only in this place but in the House of Assembly as well.
 
 The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS secured the adjournment of the debate.