Slow and steady, and absolutely no chance of placing, let alone winning the race.
That can be the only summation of the Government's refugee quota announcement.
It finally bowed to ongoing pressure and announced last Monday (a week ahead of today's World Refugee Day)
it would boost the country's permanent refugee quota.
The grand change after almost 30 years of the scheme?
An annual increase from 750 to 1000. To begin in 2018.
It is little wonder the announcement has been greeted with disdain.
Parties on both sides of the political divide - Labour, the Green Party, United Future, NZ First and the Act Party - and organisations such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross are pushing for meaningful change to the quota.
Seldom is there such political consensus.
There is widespread support from the public too, who have watched with increasing anguish as the biggest refugee crisis since World War 2 unfolds.
Most believe a doubling of our current quota would be a decent and symbolic start.
A 20,000-signature petition was presented to Parliament in March, calling for that.
Immigration New Zealand has said it has the capacity for 1500 refugees a year if funding for community services is increased.
So why the years of intransigence, and why such a paltry response? Prime Minister John Key and Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse say it comes down to cost and capacity.
The current cost of the scheme is about $75 million a year.
That would rise to $100 million a year for the quota of 1000. Can we afford more?
If there's enough left over for election year tax cuts, the answer is surely yes.
Given the annual increase is equal to one personal flag project, the answer is surely yes.
So what about capacity? Mr Woodhouse is absolutely correct in his comment: "It's not enough to simply relocate them to a strange country and then leave them.''
It is vital to provide appropriate accommodation and wide-ranging support for refugees.
Many may enter the country with not much more than the clothes on their backs, not knowing the language or the culture.
If they are fleeing war zones or ongoing natural disaster they may be traumatised, may require immediate or ongoing physical and mental healthcare.
But if humanitarian groups say they have the capacity for more, and the public and churches and other groups are able and willing to help, the only problem is funding that support and infrastructure.
Some regions have available housing, some regions are crying out for more families.
We could - and should - choose to make more of a financial commitment.
Faced with such overwhelming and unrelenting need, that would be the moral thing to do.
We are a prosperous nation. We pay for infrastructure for 3 million tourists each year, our doors are wide open to 60,000 permanent immigrants a year.
Can we really only add in another 250 refugees?
We espouse our humanitarian ideals but we are being put to shame by others. Our contribution in per capita terms is pitiful.
Part of the Government's reasoning for keeping the numbers low is we still need to leave capacity for an emergency intake (such as the recent Syrian intake of 600 refugees over two and a-half years).
That also seems a moot argument.
We haven't always filled our general quota and the world is in the midst of the biggest refugee emergency in generations.
In terms of the Syrian crisis alone, the problem is not going to be resolved quickly.
The apocalypse is now.
If we have more emergency capacity factored in, let's use it.
There has been rarely a ripple with our first intake of Syrian refugees.
The Red Cross has coped.
The public support has been heartening.
This country does not have to deal with the numbers of refugees overwhelming other nations.
We are fortunate.
We can afford to spread our good fortune further than we have.
Shame on us.
