Editorial: Screening immigrants for HIV

Opinion

The Labour Party has long had a strangely ambivalent attitude to the admission to this country of people with HIV or Aids. The screening of prospective immigrants pre-arrival, announced by the Shipley Government shortly before it lost office, became a mere question on a residency application and an admission of infection was not an automatic disqualifier. More information would be sought in each case to estimate how much of a burden the person might place on our health services.

If the person was admitted as a refugee they would be given a full medical check-up that included a test of HIV infection but they could not be rejected on the basis of a positive result. When a Zimbabwean immigrant demanded to know a few years ago why New Zealand did not screen for HIV or Aids when they were rife where she came from, the Immigration Minister at that time, Lianne Dalziel, replied: "It's an assumption you can keep Aids out at the border - you can't." But she was considering screening for other diseases such as TB.

That she did a couple of years later. Every prospective immigrant would be tested for TB before they arrived here and refused entry if they were found to be carrying the respiratory illness. The screening introduced in 2004 included HIV and other infectious diseases but those were not automatic barriers to admission. In fact, HIV was one of the qualifying conditions for refugees. New Zealand's annual refugee quota of 750 reserved 75 places for those with medical, physical or social disabilities including up to 20 places for those with HIV.

Little wonder, really, that the Government now finds itself severely embarrassed by the behaviour of hundreds of Zimbabweans given refuge here from the Mugabe regime before 2004. About 800 have failed to come forward to apply for residency under a scheme offered last year and the suspicion is that they are deterred by the requirement to take an HIV test. Health Minister Pete Hodgson and Immigration Minister David Cunliffe have now issued an appeal to them with the assurance that they will not be refused residency if they are found to be HIV positive.

Given the Government's record on this subject, that assurance can be believed. If the 800 immigrants reflect the incidence of HIV in their home country as many as 160 may have the disease. If they all need retroviral treatment it could cost the taxpayer close to $3 million a year.

But cost is not the main consideration. The ministers urgently want the refugees to come forward because, as Mr Hodgson said, "It is intolerable to have people who might have HIV, resident in New Zealand society not knowing if they are HIV positive". Many will say it ought to have been intolerable that people could be admitted to this society who might have HIV and not know it. When people apply to come from places where the incidence of the disease is high, pre-arrival screening should have been compulsory, as the previous Government planned.

Mr Hodgson concedes that point is "probably fair" but he is more concerned now to put out the message that the suspected carriers in our midst will be supported, not stigmatised. Since they are unlikely to be flushed out unless reassured of a welcome, we are all obliged for the sake of our collective health to pretend we are not worried that they are here.

The community has grown accustomed to being manipulated in this way where Aids is concerned. At a certain point, if these people do not come forward, the Government will need to find a different attitude. It must find them, test them, treat them if necessary and ensure the community is properly protected. Better late than never.