9. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Does he believe the decision not to test Zimbabweans for HIV before entering New Zealand, despite Zimbabwe’s high HIV rate, was in New Zealand’s best interests, and if not, does he stand by his reported comments that criticism about the decision was “probably fair”?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
This Government does support HIV testing for long-term migrants, and it was this Government that introduced mandatory testing, a move—and I hope I am not being presumptuous—that I am sure New Zealand First supports, and we are grateful for that support.
Does he accept that if New Zealand allows an extra 200 HIV-positive people to become residents, it would increase the 1,700 known residents living with HIV/AIDS in New Zealand by more than 10 percent, and how does he expect the public to believe his assertions that the policy will decrease the prevalence of HIV in this country?
Precisely because if those people are not identified, if they are not given a diagnosis, if they are not given support, and if they are not given close medical attention the spread of HIV in New Zealand will quicken, not slow down.
H V Ross Robertson Link to this
What has been the reaction to the Government’s announcement that Zimbabweans who test positive for HIV will be allowed to stay in New Zealand?
The decision has been welcomed by the New Zealand Medical Association, the New Zealand AIDS Foundation, the Human Rights Commission, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, amongst others. These endorsements are a sign of New Zealand’s maturity on the issue of HIV and a credit to the work of successive Governments in advocating a pragmatic approach to the management of the virus.
Is it possible that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among Zimbabweans yet to apply for residency is higher than average given their reluctance to apply thus far, so it is possible that the worst-case scenario is actually a mid-range figure?
Paula BennettIf the member wants a question she should ask for it and seek it from the Speaker. The member may be aware there are 1,300 Zimbabwean citizens resident in New Zealand under this special resident policy. Five hundred of those have already been processed, if you will, and that processing includes testing for HIV. The prevalence rates amongst those already tested is about 8 percent, but we have said publicly that the prevalence rate for the remaining 800 people to be tested might be as high as 20 percent, precisely because that is the prevalence rate back in the entire Zimbabwean population.
Is the Minister aware that these people were required to declare they were of both good health and good character when they arrived here, and that people who knew they had HIV at that time are, at best, dishonest, so how are these people able to pass the good character requirement when they have been dishonest in their initial declaration?
It is true that in the processing the Zimbabwean refugees will have to pass a good character test and a police check, and so on. However, the member, if I might suggest gently, might miss the point. The danger to the public health of New Zealanders is not so much from people who know they have HIV but from people who do not know they have HIV.
Keith Locke: I seek leave to table this morning’s NewsRoom summary of the sort of disastrous Zimbabwe any people expelled would be returning to, where the reports by the Solidarity Peace Trust state that almost nothing has been done to house 700,000 people in Zimbabwe who lost their homes and livelihoods in the demolitions last year.