HIV/AIDS Response in Australia: A Policy and Societal Impact Report

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Australian government's response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, beginning with the initial detection of the virus in 1982 and tracing the evolution of policies through the years. It examines the key strategies employed, including community engagement, bilateral support, and partnerships, which were crucial in curbing the spread of the disease and mitigating its societal impact. The report highlights the reasons behind the policy, such as reducing the societal and personal impacts, reducing new cases through education and awareness, and improving the wellbeing of those affected by the virus. It also explores the impact of these policies on Australian society, including increased public awareness, community involvement, and changes in laws to support preventative measures. The analysis draws on various research studies and historical data to provide a detailed overview of Australia's approach to managing the HIV/AIDS epidemic and its long-term implications.

Running head: HIV/AIDS RESPONSE 1
Response towards HIV/AIDS by the Australians Government
Name of the student
Name of the Professor
Institution Affiliation
Date

HIV/AIDS RESPONSE 2
The first case of Human Immunodeficiency Virus/ Acquired Deficiency Syndrome
(HIV/AIDS) in Australia was detected and noted in November, 1982. The first demise due HIV
infection was reported in Australia in July 1984. The speedy increase of HIV/AIDS cases was
noted in the 1980s. The scientific research databases are the ones that can be useful to provide an
exclusive justification of the Australian epidemic of HIV/AIDS. The government of Australia
begins strategies in response to the rapid spread of the disease to control and curb the HIV
epidemic (Bell, Aggleton, & Slavin, 2018).
The response by the government of Australia helped it to relieve the financial burden of
treating the large cases of HIV patients. Also, it spared thousands of Australian youths from
getting infected and prevent early deaths from the deadly disease. The first strategy composed
several concepts that were derivative from the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion in 1986
which still is useful by Australia in responding to the virus. The features of the first strategy
were retained in the second, third and fourth strategy (Deeks et al., 2016).
History
HIV/AIDS emerged as an unidentifiable, fatal, and infectious disease in the early 1980s
and it posed an alarm to the Australian government which led to its response policy towards it.
The disease mostly affected several stigmatized communities. 23, 989 cases of HIV/AIDS were
reported in Australia by 30th September 2004. In the mid-1980s, there was a prompt upsurge of
the HIV/AIDS caseload but the new cases of infected individuals reduced significantly when the
prevalence of the disease did not hold on the general heterosexual groups. Instead, the disease
was mostly contained in the groups that were first affected by the virus. There had been 6,459
deaths by 2004 which were due to the AIDS infection (Hampton et al, 2017).

HIV/AIDS RESPONSE 3
The response by the government was a ground-breaking policy that entrenched in three
major principles. The key principles include; community engagement, bilateral support and
partnership. The relative response of Australia towards HIV/AIDS came about because of health
challenges posed to the lives of Australians by the disease epidemic including the general public,
clinicians, provincial and researchers and national government, civil society organizations,
imaginative and practical response to the complex political, economic, public and social.
Australia did not build its HIV/AIDS response from the top down but its response was initiated
from the grassroots up (Kay, Batey, & Mugavero, 2016).
Besides the tumultuous of early response to the disease by Australia, a partnership developed
Australia’s political leaders, provincial and national government, researcher’s organization's
clinicians and community groups that were involved with HIV/AIDS disease. The existence of
this partnership for around 25 years has enhanced a firm basis for the development of the
proceeding HIV/AIDS strategies, which encompass prevention, treatment, research, education
and care. In the 1990s, the epidemic of HIV/AIDS in Australia reached a “steady-state”. In 1994
the number Australian who had HIV infection who were 13,737 increased to 20,580 in 2003; this
was due to the introduction of the new, improved treatment (McKay, 2016).
Reasons Behind the Policy
The initial response of Australia towards the emergence of the HIV/AIDS depended on the
political, cultural and social environment within the 1980s. The first strategy of the Australian
National aids policy implemented in 1989 contained three goals; taking care of the infected
persons, control and restrain the spread of the HIV/AIDS transmission, and providing support
and education to the healthcare professionals. This national strategy has been maintained through
this policy. The framework was to ensure Australia’s HIV/AIDS policy response has been

HIV/AIDS RESPONSE 4
acclaimed as one of the best positive reaction in the world. Other reasons behind the HIV/AIDS
response policy in Australia were to reduce the societal and personal impacts in the community
(Wang et al., 2016).
The other objective of the policy was to reduce the new cases of the disease in the
country through health promotion, education, improve the public awareness of transmitting the
disease, minimizing the harm and trends of the infection. The policy targeted to advance the
wellbeing of the people who have been infected with HIV/AIDS in Australia through enhancing
accessible and equal treatment. The strategy showed it essential to improve the continuum of
care in human and healthcare services. The policy aimed to minimize the discrimination and
stigmatization of HIV/AIDS patients in Australia. The other reason behind the policy was to
strengthen and to develop links with other national initiatives related to disease management and
healthcare framework (Kaur et al., 2016).
The public concern, actions, and mobilization from the communities that were affected
by the virus indulged the provincial and national government of Australia to react rapidly,
creatively and generously to the dangers postured by the deadly disease. Other key objectives
behind the response policy include; general advocacy to ensure adoption of safer sexual
practices, availability of condoms and use of them, enable effective actions and education to the
public to prevent discrimination on the people with HIV and to create a strong social research
and scientific institution with enough capacity (Hosseinzadeh, & Dadich, 2016).
Impact of Change in the Australian Society
The Australian response to HIV/AIDS created a general overview to the public that made
everyone to become cautious about the spread and transmission of disease. After the reaction by

HIV/AIDS RESPONSE 5
the government, all the center parties endorsed and began to support the main fundamentals of
the national government strategies on the HIV pandemic. Later all groups of the public had
started to support the government to fight the fatal HIV/AIDS. The groups in corporation with
the government included the affected communities, researchers and clinicians. The main aim was
to reduce the impacts the disease would impose on the personal and social level. In 1987, the
general public and the community imposed pressure on the government of New South Wales to
change some laws to accept some of the preventative measures to operate legally. These
measures include detecting HIV, managing infected persons for treatments and ensuring
preventative education to the injecting drug users. Society is accustomed to working together to
bring the political pressure down to enable both the national and regional governments to work
smoothly to stabilize the spread of HIV/AIDS (Brown et al., 2018).
The Australians did not wait for the government to play the larger part in curbing the
spread of the disease; instead they too made an effort to frame and shape the government
responses. The community involvement including gay groups in Australia in large cities headed
a formation of the AIDS Action Committee in all the state capitals. The AIDS Action Committee
which started in Sydney and Victorian sates in 1983, was later reconstituted as AIDS councils
and is up to date continuing as the major non-governmental organizations of HIV/AIDS. These
groups retorted to the media and public about HIV/AIDS concerns. The HIV/AIDS community
started rapid campaigns to educate their peers about the fauna of the emerging threats of the
disease. The AIDS groups acquired considerable knowledge about HIV infection and its effect
on their interest and their day-to-day activities. The knowledge from the public was additional
value in dealing with people living with AIDS, their members, clients and informing the
government on policy formulation and deliberations (Prestage et al, 2016).

HIV/AIDS RESPONSE 6
References
Bell, S., Aggleton, P., & Slavin, S. (2018). Negotiating trust and struggling for control: everyday
narratives of unwanted disclosure of HIV status among people with HIV in Australia.
Health Sociology Review, 27(1), 1-14.
Brown, G., Reeders, D., Cogle, A., Madden, A., Kim, J., & O'Donnell, D. (2018). A systems
thinking approach to understanding and demonstrating the role of peer-led programs and
leadership in the response to HIV and hepatitis C: findings from the W3 project. Frontiers
in public health, 6, 231.
Deeks, S. G., Lewin, S. R., Ross, A. L., Ananworanich, J., Benkirane, M., Cannon, P., ... &
Kuritzkes, D. (2016). International AIDS Society global scientific strategy: towards an
HIV cure 2016. Nature medicine, 22(8), 839.
Hampton, G., Buggy, M., Graves, J., McCann, L., & Irwin, J. (2017). Grappling with realities:
policy and practice in HIV social work. Australian Social Work, 70(1), 92-103.
Hosseinzadeh, H., & Dadich, A. (2016). Cross-cultural integration affects attitudes towards
people with HIV/AIDS in Australia. Sexual health, 13(2), 182-189.
Kaur, K. K., Kay, T., Auwal, S. G., Salma, A. M., Kamal, A. I., Faisal, I., & Rosliza, A. M.
(2016). A comparison of HIV/AIDS Health policy in selected developed and developing
countries. International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences, 3(3), 45-58.
Kay, E. S., Batey, D. S., & Mugavero, M. J. (2016). The HIV treatment cascade and care
continuum: updates, goals, and recommendations for the future. AIDS research and
therapy, 13(1), 35.

HIV/AIDS RESPONSE 7
McKay, T. (2016). From marginal to marginalised: The inclusion of men who have sex with men
in global and national AIDS programmes and policy. Global Public Health, 11(7-8), 902-
922.
Prestage, G., Brown, G., Allan, B., Ellard, J., & Down, I. (2016). Impact of peer support on
behavior change among newly diagnosed Australian gay men. JAIDS Journal of
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 72(5), 565-571.
Wang, H., Wolock, T. M., Carter, A., Nguyen, G., Kyu, H. H., Gakidou, E., ... & Coates, M. M.
(2016). Estimates of global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and mortality of
HIV, 1980–2015: the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The lancet HIV, 3(8), e361-
e387.