Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: HIV/Aids

  1. #1
    WillyWonka is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3

    Default HIV/Aids

    If someone is HIV+ does this automatically exclude them from being granted a work permit in NZ? Are there any exceptions?

    If this is the case is it just a prejudicial policy to reduce the numbers of non-whites and non-heterosexuals migrating to NZ? I'd have expected this sort of rule from Oz, especially under the Howard regime, but not from NZ! Discuss!!!

  2. #2
    MotherBear's Avatar
    MotherBear is offline The missing link
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    currently Ras al Khaimah, UAE, ex Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,180
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    A very unusual topic for a first post (or rather, first and second post - I deleted the other one as there was no need for a duplicate). Also a very politically heavy topic for an immigration forum.

    As you will see on here HIV is list therefore it is deemed to be a problem in NZ. I wasn't aware that HIV was the burden of purely non-whites and non-hetrosexuals - we are all open to this given the right (or should that be 'wrong') circumstances regardless of colour, creed or whatever else, so I don't see the relevance of asking if the ruling is just to keep out those that you mentioned.
    Mother Bear

    Try to bloom wherever you are planted.

  3. #3
    WillyWonka is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Sorry if I was a little over zealous but I have a gay friend who recently was offered a fantastic job in Auckland but was denied a visa on the grounds of him being HIV+. His Cd4 count and viral load levels are neglible and the virus is barely detectable in his system but yet he is deemed to be too costly for the NZ health system.

    Are there no exceptions at all at the discretion of the medical assessor? i.e. if his ARV treatment doesn't exceed $25000? The information I have read seems to be slightly confusing.

    The Health requirements leaflet states that:
    'Medical waivers can only be considered if all other requirements for approval of your application have been met. However, medical waivers cannot be granted to people where they:
    ? require dialysis treatment, or a consultant physician has indicated that they will require such treatment in the immediate future; or
    ? have active tuberculosis (TB); or
    ? have a mental disorder or intellectual disability that has needed care in a hospital or supervised residence for more than 90 days in the last two years; or
    ? have a physical incapacity that requires full-time care.'


    HIV is not mentioned in this list thus suggesting that a medical waiver might be granted in some circumstances? Does my friend have a case to appeal or seek a medical waiver or does Appendix 10 supercede this discretion?

    BTW you will find that the chances of a white heterosexual being HIV+ are 100's of times lower than those of a gay man or person of African origin so whilst I accept that technically HIV is an indiscriminatory virus in reality it is almost exclusively confined to certain high risk groups. Would you not agree?

  4. #4
    MotherBear's Avatar
    MotherBear is offline The missing link
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    currently Ras al Khaimah, UAE, ex Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,180
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I would agree that certain regions and certain groups do have a higher incidence of HIV/Aids but I've also heard, perhaps because it's closer to me, of many outside of these groups being affected. I could in no way quote statistics as I haven't studied this subject.

    I do know, however, that it's not that easy to move around the world these days (long term, that is) when you have HIV/Aids. Whenever we've moved countries with my husband's work, we've had to have an Aids test and it would, of course, be the same for everyone else in our position. Presumably, if we'd failed the test we wouldn't have been allowed to work in that country. Oddly enough, when we went to Syria we didn't have to have the test because we were over 50 years old. Why they think over 50s are excluded from having Aids I can't imagine unless they think we're over the hill and aren't sexually active any longer. But then Syria was a very strange country to live in .

    Did you read this in the NZ press? I was very surprised that NZ is taking these people in because their heath service is in crisis in some areas and also because of their own strict rulings on this matter.

    I truly wouldn't like to guess whether your friend could apply for a waiver but, if it doesn't exclude him in the INZ list, then I'd say go for it or at least enquire about the possibility of having a waiver. They are the ones who make the decisions and who know what criteria they work to.
    Mother Bear

    Try to bloom wherever you are planted.

  5. #5
    PonyWoo is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I have personally found NZ very welcoming of same sex couples, so I do not think the grounds are in any way based on that.

    While not an expert on the subject, I would imagine one of the major reasons is that if your friend was coming over on the basis of a work permit, or as a skilled immigrant, and it was seen that HIV may have an effect on his health in the future affecting his ability to work, this may have resulted in not be granted a visa. Plus the health care issues.

    I wouldnt say it was in any way discriminatory, as MotherBear said, HIV can affect anyone.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46