Smokefree Law in New Zealand
Frequently asked questions

Part 1: Smoke-free Environments > Section C: Hospitality Venues - Bars, Pubs, Restaurants, Cafés, Casinos, Clubs etc

C1) Which hospitality venues are covered by the 100 percent smoking ban?

C2) What is the definition of an indoor area of a hospitality venue? Where can people smoke?

C3) Why include RSAs and private clubs in the smokefree protections?

C4) Why not allow exemptions for some premises?

C5) Why not allow premises to use ventilation systems instead of a smoking ban?

C6) Why not allow separate smoking areas in hospitality venues?

C7) Aren’t smokefree provisions be bad for hospitality and tourism business?

C8) What is the evidence that smokefree won’t harm business?

C9) What other jurisdictions have smokefree legislation like New Zealand’s?

C10) What happens if someone smokes in a hospitality venue?


C1) Which hospitality venues are covered by the 100 percent smoking ban?

No person may smoke in the indoor area of a hospitality venue. A hospitality venue is:

• an indoor workplace
• a restaurant (which includes cafes and other eateries)
• a casino or gaming machine venue
• licensed premises (that serve alcohol under a Sale of Liquor Act licence).

The following are examples of licensed premises (serving alcohol):

• bar, pub, tavern
• not-for-profit sports club
• RSA that serves alcohol
• cigar bar
• housie hall.

See also the changes for cigarette vending machines [E9].


C2) What is the definition of an indoor area of a hospitality venue? Where can people smoke?

An indoor area of a hospitality venue is:

• ‘substantially enclosed’ by walls, sides, screens or similar surfaces

• (including ones with closable openings such as windows or doors), and an overhead surface (eg, ceiling) and

• frequented by staff (eg, public serving areas and behind bars, in kitchens etc).

Open decks, verandahs, gardens and open-sided gazebos are not considered ‘indoors’, and the smokefree provisions do not apply/proprietors may choose to allow people to smoke in these places.

Other examples depend on the individual circumstances of whether an area is ‘substantially enclosed’ or not (eg, a tent or awning like structure).

Caution: The Ministry of Health cannot provide legal advice about how the statutory definition of an indoor area that is ‘substantially enclosed’ (and therefore smokefree) applies to particular situations or premises.

Note that a particular situation may be defined in different ways/possibly caught by different aspects or definitions in the smokefree law. Anyone wanting specific legal advice should contact a lawyer or legal expert.


C3) Why include RSAs and private clubs in the smoke-free protections?

If a club employs people, serves food, or has a liquor or gambling licence, then the smokefree provisions apply. This creates a level playing field with other businesses with the same licence or employer obligations, and the same potential clientele.

The Health Select Committee recommended the removal of the exceptions that allowed smoking in certain licensed premises, for consistency in protecting all workers from the health harms of second-hand smoke.

It is easier for the public to understand a ‘one rule applies to all’ smokefree provision.


C4) Why not allow exemptions for some premises?

During Parliament’s debate of the Bill in 2003, several MPs proposed to exempt about 200 named premises (mostly bars and taverns) from the smokefree law. The amendments were not accepted by Parliament and are not included in the Smokefree Environments Act 2003.

A level playing field is considered fairer and easier.

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) announced in November 2003 a phasing out of its exemption rules, finding they did not work and they exposed some workers to unnecessary health risks.


C5) Why not allow premises to use ventilation systems instead of a smoke-free ban?

During Parliament’s debate of the Bill in late 2003, new ‘ventilation’ provisions were proposed by the Hon Peter Dunne (United Future), with a ‘minimum air quality standard’ by 2006.

The ‘ventilation’ amendment was not accepted by Parliament and is not included in the Smokefree Environments Act 2003.


C6) Why not allow separate smoking areas in hospitality venues?

The Health Select Committee considered that separate smoking areas were not effective in protecting workers from exposure to second-hand smoke. Smoke drifts into non-smoking areas, as a recent Australian study showed, exposing non-smokers to dangerous second-hand smoke.

The Committee considered that if smoking was allowed in some areas that this could place strong pressure on non-smokers to defer to smokers. The Committee preferred to take a consistent approach and make all indoor hospitality venues smokefree.


C7) Aren’t smoke-free provisions be bad for hospitality and tourism business?

Overseas and local experience indicates that smokefree provisions will likely have a positive impact on business.

The majority of people who use hospitality venues are non-smokers: three-quarters of potential bar-goers are non-smokers. Overseas experience has repeatedly shown that the public embrace the opportunity to go out more and enjoy smokefree venues.


C8) What is the evidence that smoke-free won’t harm business?

A review of nearly 100 international studies found that every objective study, including studies in the USA, Canada and Australia, showed a neutral to positive economic impact for businesses from smokefree provisions.

Several studies found that smokefree legislation was good for business, because non-smokers (who are in the majority) eat out and drink out more often.

Since New York went smokefree in 2003, there has been a positive impact on business despite negative predictions.

The smokefree ban has generated 10,000 new hospitality jobs, an increase in bar, hotel and tourism revenues, and there is overwhelming public support for the ban.

Since California went smokefree in 1998, not only has there been a significant improvement in the health of hospitality workers, but there has also been an increase in overall revenue for California bars and restaurants every year since.

Ninety-one percent of bar patrons went to bars as often or more often, and on average stayed longer and enjoyed the experience as much or more.

A 2002 survey in Australia found that smokers who decided not to go somewhere because smoking was prohibited were outnumbered 2:1 by non-smokers who decided not to go somewhere in order to avoid breathing tobacco smoke.

In New Zealand, the indications are similar.

The Health Sponsorship Council’s ‘Monitor’ survey this year found that over a third of respondents (37 percent) would be more likely to go to bars etc if they went smokefree, and almost half (46 percent) said it would make no difference.

• Most smokers (53 percent) said it would make no difference to them if pubs, bars and nightclubs went totally smokefree.

• The Loaded Hog Café at Auckland’s Viaduct Basin increased its takings by 15 percent after instigating a smokefree Tuesday night, and attracted more family groups on smokefree Tuesdays.

C9) What other jurisdictions have smoke-free protections like New Zealand’s?

• Ireland (from 2004)

• Australia – states or territories in Australia have or are going smokefree

• Sweden

• Norway

• USA: at least five states in the USA have gone or are going smokefree: California (since 1998), New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

• A further 182 jurisdictions in the USA have smokefree workplaces and dining, and 58 have smokefree bars.

• Canada: Ontario (proposing a province-wide ban 2004), 45 municipalities with smokefree workplaces and dining, and 31 municipalities with smokefree bars including Vancouver City.

C10) What happens if someone smokes in a hospitality venue?

A proprietor is liable for a fine of up to $400 (individual) or $4000 (body corporate) if they allow someone to smoke on the premises in a smokefree area.

They will not be prosecuted if they have taken all reasonably practicable steps to prevent unlawful smoking (eg, if they display no-smoking signs, do not provide ashtrays, and give an oral warning to the smoker). It is the failure not to take these steps that will breach the new law rather than the act of smoking itself.

Fines will not be imposed on individual smokers for smoking in other places.

The intention of the smokefree law is not to target smokers, but to encourage public health protections against second-hand smoke with public support and voluntary compliance.

Page last updated 29 June 2005