The plan announced this week is a framework, not a plan

On 27 March, the government announced a four-phase Fuel Response Plan and five prioritisation bands for fuel allocation. We welcome the fact that a framework now exists. But it has no numbers. The prioritisation bands name categories but assign no volumes. There is no ranking between bands. And the government confirmed it is still consulting on how to implement the phases that actually matter - phases 3 and 4, where fuel is rationed. They are building the lifeboat while the ship is taking on water.

NZ burns roughly 12.3 million litres of diesel per day. The government’s own figures show that only around 18 days of diesel is physically onshore as at March 27th, the rest is on ships that could be diverted, delayed, or cancelled under Force Majeure. If onshore stocks need to last three months, the daily budget drops to under 2.5 million litres, about a fifth of normal consumption. At that level, an unranked list without quantities is functionally no plan at all. As Mike Hodgkinson at Laloli Research has identified: without a pre-agreed quantified framework, allocation defaults to ad hoc decisions under pressure - rationing by political weight, not by need.

The government’s own published criteria for moving to Phase 2 include export restrictions on refineries NZ imports from. South Korea, China, and Thailand have all imposed such restrictions. By the government’s own triggers, Phase 2 should already be active.

The problem goes beyond fuel itself. Ships require bunker fuel to refuel at port. If we cannot supply bunker fuel, shipping lines will bypass New Zealand entirely. That means not just fuel, but all imported goods: medicines, machinery parts, food inputs, and the fertilisers that underpin our agricultural productivity.

The food question is immediate. A large share of what New Zealanders eat is imported. Without a rationing and allocation framework for both fuel and food, people consume what is available in the first days and then there is nothing left. Managed drawdown is the only alternative. Compounding risks - a tropical cyclone, an earthquake, a drought, or further escalation - could hit on top of an already critical fuel situation. The government’s own catastrophic risk research has identified these compound scenarios. That research needs to be acted on now.

What an essential use allocation means

If NZ reaches a point where it has days, not weeks, of usable fuel remaining, every litre must count. Drawing on the essential use allocation framework developed by Mike Hodgkinson (Laloli Research), catastrophic risk research, and independent analysis, we propose the following four-tier framework:

Every diesel use outside these tiers stops.

Wise Response acknowledges the work of Mike Hodgkinson in preparing this hierarchy.

Each tier needs a litres-per-day allocation based on actual stocks, projected resupply timelines, and the duration the stocks need to last. That model does not exist. Building it is urgent and should have started weeks ago.

Why this matters beyond fuel

The problem goes beyond fuel itself. Ships require bunker fuel to refuel at port. If we cannot supply bunker fuel, shipping lines will bypass New Zealand entirely. That means not just fuel, but all imported goods: medicines, machinery parts, food inputs, and the fertilisers that underpin our agricultural productivity.

The food question is immediate. A large share of what New Zealanders eat is imported. Without a rationing and allocation framework for both fuel and food, people consume what is available in the first days and then there is nothing left. Managed drawdown is the only alternative.

Compounding risks make this worse. A tropical cyclone, an earthquake, a drought, a disruption to the Panama Canal, or an escalation involving Taiwan could hit on top of an already critical fuel situation. The government’s own catastrophic risk research has identified these compound scenarios. That research needs to be acted on now.

What we are asking

1. Publish a quantified essential use allocation plan for fuel within the next seven days. Not a discussion paper. A tiered, volumetric plan with litres-per-day allocations for each priority category, based on actual onshore stock levels and projected resupply timelines.

2. Rank the 14 Critical Customer categories in explicit priority order. An unranked list does not work when there is not enough fuel for everyone on it. Someone has to come first. That decision needs to be made transparently, in advance.

3. Establish a rationing framework for food and essential goods that prioritises calories for human consumption and equitable distribution to all communities, including rural and remote areas.

4. Engage with regional councils, civil defence groups, and community organisations to build local implementation capacity. Central government cannot manage this alone. Councils need authority, resources, and clear guidance to act.

5. Be transparent with the public about the severity of the situation. The gap between what the government is saying and what the physical supply data shows is eroding public trust, and people can tell.

6. Convene cross-sector coordination including fuel companies, food producers and distributors, transport operators, health boards, and civil society to align on priorities and logistics.

To civil society, business, and community leaders

If you share these concerns, add your name. This is not a partisan statement. It is a demand for basic quantified planning that should already exist. We need industry bodies, NGOs, local government, health professionals, farmers, transport operators, and concerned citizens to get behind this call.