In the face of rocketing fuel costs that – if they continue rising for much longer – will have very serious consequences for our economy and population, what does our Government do? It announces a futile public inquiry into petrol prices that will take six weeks and cost another small fortune in taxpayer funds. Commerce Minister Lianne Dalziel hopes that the public will not think it will result in price reductions. She’s being economical with the truth again.

Don’t be daft, Ms Dalziel – we all know it won’t.

The question then is: what’s the point?

We know that if all the economists and accountants in the world were laid end to end, they would reach no conclusion. That is also the fate of this spurious and wasteful inquiry. Initial soundings of the AA and petrol companies (as well as the people who suggested the inquiry in the first place) reveal that no one can see any reason for holding it.

The report just might hint at what New Zealanders have secretly known for at least four decades: like beer, fuel prices in this country are controlled by a powerful and unassailable cartel of companies who work in cahoots to fix the market. But the chances are that the inquiry will be too frightened to confront that ugly truth and instead come up with a few feeble recommendations, including:

- A toothless Petrol Commissioner, who will command a stellar salary, grumble a lot and achieve nothing but headlines

- A price warning Fuelwatch scheme such as the one in Western Australia. This brainless-wave is supposed to warn motorists of petrol prices during the next 24 hours. It just states the obvious and adds costs to the admin.

Apart from sounding like something from the Weimar Republic (where you needed a wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks for a loaf of bread, followed by two wheelbarrows the next day for half a loaf), or Zimbabwe (where you can’t buy any petrol even if you have - believe it or not - the Z$ 40 billion for one single litre), all this idea does is create the risk of panic-buying motorists causing traffic jams outside gas stations.

It does nothing to control prices, which in reality are being governed by speculators and global supply panics caused by events in Iran, Iraq and most recently even by a minor breakdown on a North Sea oil platform.

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Dr Michael Cullen continues to demonstrate his low level of higher numeracy and his high level of low cunning.

Asked whether or not he would consider reducing the level of excise duty on petrol (and a 5c a litre cut on this duty is being suggested in Australia), Dr Cullen said that removing or reducing GST on fuel would not help. But that was not the question he was being asked, because excise duty and GST on fuel are two entirely different taxes. Dr Cullen also claimed that increased fuel prices did not mean increased GST income. This is another piece of deceitful wordplay because higher basic fuel prices must, by definition, raise the GST component per litre. At least 50 percent, if not more, of the price of a litre is taken by the taxman, but cutting the 12.5 percent GST component on this single product would open up a nasty can of worms engulfing almost all products. On the other hand, cutting the excise duty component is a clean and simple way of easing the burden - right across the spectrum of consumer costs.

Let’s hope that all this haywire fuel inflation comes to an end soon because otherwise, Cullen may prove himself right in the worst possible way: the price of petrol and diesel fuel, inflated by his system of double taxation, may get so high that we grind to a complete halt.

However, we could discover that free-market mayhem had a positive effect: good old commercial forces could bring about radical changes that Labour’s flawed emissions trading scheme could never have done. Their plan is so flaky, primitive and dangerous that more than 1000 amendments to the proposed legislation have been tabled, and Labour is running so scared of its own policy that it is already promising relief, for the poor and vulnerable.

What this means is yet another example of social engineering, where anyone who is identified as having a spare dollar pays for Labour ideology while the Party’s poverty-stricken bedrock supporters get off scot-free.

The proposed scheme is probably the greatest single threat to every New Zealander’s future since Japan declared war on the United States. The consequences of getting it wrong on this subject are incalculable – and that is why all politicians should pull back, call a halt, and think very long and very hard.

If the price of motor fuel gets high enough, there will be overwhelming consumer pressure – and the price differentials to justify it – for a serious push towards ending the domination of the fossil-fuelled internal combustion engine, and a future where our vehicles are hydrogen-powered, carbon traders go bankrupt and the only harmful emissions come from politicians.

Against this gloomy backdrop, an unfunny phenomenon is appearing nightly on our TV screens. It is the internationally-screened Shell V-power ad, which consists of a series of expensive, fast-moving and extremely loud scenes starring Ferrari racing cars. The message to hundreds of thousands of Kiwi motorists (who are driving far more slowly and much less far) is that Shell has been working with Ferrari for more than half a century to produce a petrol that will make you feel like Kimi Raikkonen and deafen everyone within five kilometres.

Anecdoctal evidence indicates that this is just ordinary fuel with an added detergent, and that it is less fuel-efficient than the usual stuff.

The real message is: if you can afford a Ferrari, you can afford Shell V-power and a fool is soon parted from his money. The idiot who dreamed up this ill-timed commercial should be told to clear the desk, get on the push-bike and find a more appropriate career; Kiwi motorists should flash Shell the two-fingered Churchillian salute, for its gross insensitivity to their plight.