Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Before the adjournment I was advising the House of my constituent and the circumstances of Mr Rafal Oleszczuk, who contacted by office last year together with his partner, Karina. The tragic story is as follows. In 2009 Rafal suffered a serious motorcycle accident and lost a leg. According to his wife, since 2009, he has had to rely on a very basic, unsafe and painful prosthesis that doesn't fit properly. He could only wear the prosthesis for one hour at a time, and even so, when he wore it, it left him with scars and blood boils, which ultimately burst during the course of that one hour. All of this restricted Rafal's range of movement in his access to the wider community, activities and prospective employment opportunities.

When the NDIS was first rolled out in the Illawarra, in 2017, Rafal and his family hoped for a prosthesis that was state of the art—one that he could walk in, one that fitted him properly, one that would allow him to return to the workforce. In 2019 Rafal and Karina lodged an application for an NDIS plan. They included in it everything they needed, including doctors' and specialists' reports, impact statements and the requisite quotes. The plan was approved within two months; however, there was one glaring omission. There was no funding for the leg. According to Karina and Rafal, there was funding for core supports. They were great, but without access to the prosthesis he had no capacity to access those supports. This is typical of lots of examples that come across our desks.

They lodged a review to include the prosthesis in the new plan under advice that, unfortunately, it would take some time to process as they were a high-price item. After waiting five months, Rafal and Karina contacted my office seeking assistance, and they got it. We immediately followed up with the NDIS and within two months I was advised that the quote for the new prosthetic leg had been approved.

Earlier this year we were contacted by Karina and Rafal, who told my office that since Rafal's new prosthetic leg had been fitted he'd been able to use it. Rafal's now working full time. He has changed careers and has himself become a disability support worker. This is a success story. It shows how the NDIS, as originally conceived and properly implemented, can transform lives. It can enable people to get their lives back together and contribute as productive members of the workforce in the way they wish to. According to Karina, Rafal's much happier, is more independent and is increasingly able to engage in social activities.

Over the next couple of weeks members of this place will stand to celebrate the achievements of our Paralympians, and we should. People like Rafal will never represent Australia in the Paralympics but their situation is worthy of our attention. I simply say to the government: instead of seeing the National Disability Insurance Scheme as an opportunity to withdraw $4.9 billion from the scheme to fund an elusive budget surplus that never actually occurred, focus yourselves upon the circumstances of people like Rafal. When we're cheering on our Paralympians, as we should, we should look what more can be done for the greater number of Australians who will never get that sort of recognition or adoration but deserve our support so that they can participate meaningfully in our society. Whether it's a prosthetic leg which transforms somebody's life and enables them to get back into the workforce and assist other people, whether it's the simple equipment that is needed for people—a wheelchair, or a bed which enables them to sleep properly—whether it's transport or whether it's the right sort of care and support that they need, these are the services that the NDIS was designed to improve.

So much has been frustrated over recent years. We need to get the scheme back on track. We welcome the fact that the government has belatedly moved to implement the outcomes of the Robertson review, but much more needs to be done so the scheme can live up to its full potential.

See this speech in context