On Friday, the Prime Minister told Southern Cross Radio that his initial response to the question of whether HIV positive people should be allowed into the country…is that they should NOT, except maybe in some humanitarian cases.

Mr Howard said he would look at changing the laws, so that HIV positive people are NOT allowed in the country.

However government insiders have told Fairfax the comments were off the cuff and unlikely to be implemented.

It came in response to a report which has found the number of people migrating to Victoria with HIV (from overseas and interstate) - has jumped from 16 cases in 2004, to 70 in 2006.

Is it an unfair burden on the public health system – or simply discrimination?

Just quickly, I’m going to tell you how both New Zealand and America have responded to the issue.

• Towards the end of last year, New Zealand decided to accept a group of Zimbabweans on humanitarian grounds.

• Zimbabwe has an HIV infection rate of around 20 per cent. The New Zealand government urged the immigrants to come forward for a health screening, saying their chances of becoming permanent residents would not be affected whether they were found to be HIV positive or not.

• The government also offered to pay for any anti-retro-viral treatments that the Zimbabweans would need, if they tested positive, at a cost to NZ taxpayers of potentially 3 million dollars a year.

• The United States has policies that restrict HIV positive people from emigrating and gaining a visa.

• The countries that impose outright bans on HIV positive people include Qatar, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.

What do you think? Do you agree with the Prime Minister that Australia should probably not accept immigrants who are HIV positive? Or do you think there are situations, maybe like the Zimbabweans in New Zealand, when those concerns should be put aside (on humanitarian grounds)?

Or is simply discriminatory?