That is a saying we usually associate with medical ethics, warning against treatment which might cause more harm than good, or that if whatever is being done does not improve the situation, at least it should not make matters worse.
It is a mantra which can be applied to other situations.
One of these is the way we treat refugees.
It is not enough for us, as a country, to get warm fuzzies from offering to take in refugees from war-torn countries, but then not provide for them adequately when they arrive.
For the last decade, refugees have been arriving in Dunedin through a government settlement programme.
The late Dave Cull, when he was mayor, campaigned for this, rightly identifying the city’s community spirit to sell the idea. Refugees had been settled here in earlier years.
There was enthusiasm for this, and great intentions from groups and individuals keen to welcome these families to the city and offer them what would hopefully turn out to be a safe and fulfilling life.
No supporters of this resettlement programme would have wanted to add to the trauma already experienced by the new arrivals.
But in some instances, that is what has happened.
We have run stories about refugees being homeless or living in miserable old housing not suited to their needs while they were also coping with the many stresses of adjusting to life in a new country.
In at least one instance, a family fed up with being homeless for years in Dunedin eventually secured a suitably sized Kainga Ora home in Christchurch and moved there. Before the move, they had lived in eight different places, including an office floor and a motel.
Our stories also highlight instances of misunderstanding and poor communication between public agencies and refugees and a lack of impetus to properly identify and solve problems.
The housing situation for refugees has been described by the city’s social leaders as a symptom of the city’s housing crisis and one which the government must solve.
Our reporting on homelessness in recent years highlights that the lack of adequate housing here is not just an issue for refugees.
Current Mayor Sophie Barker said in 2015, when Dunedin was being considered as a place to settle refugees, concerns were raised about the lack of quality housing and old state housing stock.
It is not acceptable that 11 years on these concerns have not been resolved and nor is there a clear plan for this.
The Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report for 2025 released this week spells out that in the year to September 2024 across the country there was the largest increase in the total supply of public housing provided by community housing and Kainga Ora in many years. However, this was not enough to keep up with continued strong population growth in 2024.
The report shows the number of public homes in Dunedin increased by 71 in the five years to September 2024 to 1534. However, over that same period the number waiting on the housing register in the city rose from 162 to 405.
In the term of this government, a change of policy direction has seen Kainga Ora scrap hundreds of housing developments which would have produced around 3500 homes, and the selling of land deemed no longer required.
The push for increased provision of social housing through community providers is a long way from filling the gaps.
The Salvation Army estimates there is a shortfall of more than 4000 in the number of housing consents required throughout the country to provide enough housing to meet population growth.
In Dunedin, the Kainga Ora change of direction meant the end of 10 housing projects which would have provided 120 houses in Dunedin.
We agree with the mayor there is a need to continue to lobby government to invest in more community housing in the city to ensure each newly arrived family has accommodation suited to their needs now and into the future.
Maybe in an election year this will have more chance of bearing fruit.
