Goodbye disposable vapes: What are the new rules from tomorrow?
Disposable vape fans will see their habit go up in smoke from Tuesday, as tough new vape rules kick in.
Here's what you need to know about changes to vape sales and advertising.
What's being banned?
The distribution, manufacture, sale and supply of disposable vapes is being banned from tomorrow.
"We are getting rid of vapes that are most popular among young people, and that can only be positive," Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said in announcing the changes last year.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 2023/24 NZ Health Survey found 10.5% of people aged 15 to 17 vaped daily.
However, pod-style vaping devices will still be sold.
The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including a push to lift our superannuation age, rising Middle East tensions, and Auckland's amateur footballers face off against global giants. (Source: 1News)
They contain pre-filled pods which are swapped out to refill the vape.
Also, as of tomorrow, vaping devices, products and packaging can no longer be displayed at general retailers.
Specialist vape stores must not display products in any way that makes them visible from outside their place of business - that includes advertising, display in online stores and in vending machines.
There are also many new restrictions on advertising to promote or encourage the use of vaping products, including to existing customers. The new raft of advertising restrictions means businesses could face a $2000 infringement fine.
ADVERTISEMENT
For instance, the Government says it would violate the new regulations if a shop is advertising or posting about vaping products on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Google business listings.
"From June 17, we will no longer be able to show images of the products," one online vape retailer says on its website.
There's quite a lot of detail in the new advertising rules, and a full breakdown can be found on Health New Zealand's website.
Research finds people who vape are more than twice as likely to develop chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. (Source: 1News)
Also, as of Tuesday, vaping specialist retailers can no longer use various promotional techniques such as giving away free vaping products, discounts, offering rewards, cash rebates or gifts for the purchase of vaping products, or offering lotteries or games to people who buy vaping products.
Haven't there already been some restrictions on vapes?
Yes, as part of the series of changes to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 last year. The new changes are the second line of alterations, which began coming into effect in December.
ADVERTISEMENT
As of December, fines for selling to minors and publishing prohibited advertisements were increased, and new vape speciality stores were forbidden from opening within 100 metres of early childhood education centres.
There were already location restrictions saying speciality vape stores had to be at least 300 metres from schools or marae.
In introducing the amendments to smoking regulations last year, Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said, "New Zealand was too slow to effectively regulate vaping, and youth vaping rates are too high".
Associate Health Minister Casey Costello. Photo: Nick Monro/RNZ (Source: rnz.co.nz)
"We have collectively agreed that, we have recognised that, and we know that we can do better. We have to stop young people from taking it up as a habit."
The ban on disposable vapes was put off for six months to allow retailers to prepare for the changes.
Jonathan Devery, chairperson of the Vaping Industry Association of New Zealand (VIANZ), said the group does support the disposable vapes ban, with a few caveats.
ADVERTISEMENT
He said while VIANZ "supports the intent behind the policy - to reduce youth access and address the environmental impact of single-use products - the association is urging caution about the potential unintended consequences".
University of Otago public health professor Janet Hoek, a leading researcher into vaping, said whether or not the ban will make a difference will depend on enforcement and product innovation by the industry.
Will people just switch from disposable vapes to refillable pods?
"I would expect [the ban] to reduce youth vaping given young people are very price sensitive," Hoek said.
"However, if the industry responds, as I think it is likely to do, by introducing cheaper pod vapes, the impact will be much less limited than we might hope."
University of Otago Professor Janet Hoek. (Source: Supplied)
"They're not a straightforward replacement," Devery said.
ADVERTISEMENT
"There's a real risk that removing the most convenient smoking cessation option could drive consumers back to cigarettes."
Hoek said many manufacturers may look for loopholes they can exploit with bans.
"Disposable vapes are typically inexpensive [i.e., may cost less than $10 a device], so the vaping industry may respond by introducing new lower-priced reusable vapes," Hoek said, saying she had seen pod starter kits - without pods, which cost extra - being advertised for under $10.
"We saw this behaviour among tobacco companies as they tried to undermine the impact of increased tobacco excise taxes [they 'shifted' the tax to higher priced brands, away from lower priced brands and introduced entirely new brands to create a new 'super value' partition within the market]."
The results are prompting calls for tighter regulation and more support, Kate Nicol-Williams reports. (Source: 1News)
Devery of VIANZ said it's possible some vape sales may just go underground.
"There are also serious concerns about enforcement," he said.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Early warnings from the UK, where a disposable vape ban came into effect on June 1, suggest black market sales are likely to increase."
Hoek said there is a lot of concern that manufacturers may find ways around disposable bans - she pointed to "Big Puff" high-capacity throwaway vapes that have drawn concern in the UK with their own disposables ban.
What does this mean for the vaping industry?
"We have consistently called for a full ban on disposable vapes, rather than incremental technical fixes, and we welcome the environmental benefits it will bring," Devery said.
"But the transition must be managed carefully to avoid driving consumers back to smoking or into unregulated markets."
The industry group feels that some of the advertising restrictions may ultimately harm consumers and make it harder for retailers to interact with them.
"Many retailers, especially online, have relied on clear product information and guidance to help adults make informed choices," Devery said.
ADVERTISEMENT
A woman vaping. (Source: istock.com)
"New restrictions will limit what can be communicated, making it harder for consumers to understand available options or find support to switch."
"Retailers are still recovering from last year's rushed regulations that left them with unsellable stock and high compliance costs - from updating websites to in-store signage," he said.
Many retailers have discounted their products heavily before the bans take effect.
But should more be done to control vaping?
Hoek said she thought the new measures would help cut youth vaping, but more strategy was needed.
"There are many omissions from the measures (e.g., the high concentration of vape stores in lower-income communities; the location of vape stores right next to schools).
ADVERTISEMENT
"I would favour a more proactive strategy that reduced the appeal, availability, addictiveness and affordability of vaping products."
One of the key complaints about disposable vapes has been the waste they generate, Devery said.
Yellow disposable electronic cigarette in a teenagers hand. (Source: istock.com)
"Removing disposables will help cut vape-related e-waste by over 80% according to our industry estimates, but more must be done," he said.
"VIANZ recommends expanded take-back schemes like VapeCycle, producer-responsibility regulations, and better consumer education on safe disposal."
"I would favour a 'polluter pays' model, where vape companies are responsible for the costs their products create," Hoek said.
"Vape companies have been given clear rules to follow, and yet some are already looking for loopholes," Asthma and Respiratory Foundation chief executive Letitia Harding said in a statement.
ADVERTISEMENT
Will this help NZ meet its Smokefree 2025 goals?
Back in 2011, New Zealand's government set the goal of a Smokefree New Zealand by 2025. There have been concerns that the goal is falling short, with particular worries about Māori and Pasifika smoking rates.
Costello has maintained the Government's changes will continue to work toward the target.
"We do not want our young people vaping," Costello said in Parliament.
"We do not want them taking up this habit. We do not want them to be nicotine addicted. We also don't want anybody taking up tobacco and smoking."
Vaping (file photo). (Source: istock.com)
The current smokefree goal aims to have less than 5% of the population smoking by December, but the latest data reveals there are still about 300,000 daily smokers - 6.9% of adults - across the country.
ADVERTISEMENT
"VIANZ urges the Government to closely monitor the ban's impact on smoking rates, particularly among priority groups, and ensure regulations don't inadvertently harm those most vulnerable," Deverey said.
"Vaping regulation must be viewed in the context of the devastating harm caused by smoking, which kills two out of every three users."
"Strong rules and environmental responsibility are essential, but the broader goal must remain to reduce smoking and improve public health outcomes."
Hoek said it's important vaping retailers were brought along on that goal.
"People who sell vaping products should be able to help people switch successfully from smoking to vaping," she said.
"We also need to let people know that, once they have switched completely to vaping and no longer think there's a risk they would return to smoking, they should stop vaping.
"That latter message isn't [for obvious reasons] communicated by vaping companies or retailers."
ADVERTISEMENT
By Nik Dirga of rnz.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Investment Summit Drives Strong Bids For Northland Expressway PPP
Minister for Infrastructure Minister of Transport The positive impact of the Government's Infrastructure Investment Summit earlier this year is beginning to show, following the shortlisting of three consortia for the Warkworth to Te Hana section of the Northland Expressway, Infrastructure and Transport Minister Chris Bishop says. 'The Investment Summit, which took place in Auckland in March 2025, attracted international and local companies which collectively manage over $6 trillion in capital,' Mr Bishop says. 'Ministers' presentations at the Summit left the investors in no doubt that New Zealand is serious about attracting investment into the big infrastructure projects our country needs. 'One of the projects featured at the Summit was the Northland Expressway, a critical project to boost jobs and growth in an area rich with untapped potential. During my presentation on this project at the Summit, I announced that we were inviting Expressions of Interest to deliver the first stage of the project. 'This first stage includes a 26km four-lane expressway from Warkworth to Te Hana which connects to the new Pūhoi to Warkworth expressway. The indicative design for Warkworth to Te Hana includes an 850m long twin bore tunnel in the Dome Valley and three interchanges located at Warkworth, Wellsford and Te Hana. 'We received very strong interest in this project from both domestic and international consortia, several of which included companies who attended the Investment Summit. 'Following NZTA's rigorous evaluation and selection process, three of these consortia have been shortlisted to move forward to the Request for Proposals (RFP) stage, during which they will submit RFPs for the financing, design, construction, management and maintenance of the Warkworth to Te Hana section of the expressway under a PPP.' The three shortlisted consortia are: Northway made up of Acciona Concesiones S.L., abrdn Global Sustainable Infrastructure GP IV Ltd and Acciona Construction New Zealand Ltd Go>North made up of VINCI Highways S.A.S., John Laing Limited, VINCI Construction Grands Projets S.A.S., VINCI Construction GeoInfrastructure S.A.S. and HEB Construction Limited Together North made up of Plenary Origination Pty Ltd, Webuild S.p.A, WBCA Pty Ltd, Gamuda Engineering Pty Limited and Service Stream Holdings Pty Limited 'The shortlisted consortia are all well positioned to deliver a high-quality motorway that will boost regional resilience, enhance road safety and travel reliability and strengthen vital connections for freight, tourism and everyday drivers,' Mr Bishop says. 'I want to acknowledge the huge amount of work from all respondents who provided high quality submissions, and NZTA for continuing to meet the ambitious timeframes for this procurement. 'We are now an important step closer to delivering a vital connection which will help Northland's economy grow and its communities thrive.' The Warkworth to Te Hana section of the corridor has been prioritised for delivery as it is the most advanced section in terms of designation, consents and property acquisition. A Preferred Bidder for the PPP is expected to be confirmed in early 2026. Subject to successful contract negotiations, the contract is expected to be awarded in mid-2026. The successful PPP consortia is expected to start detailed design and early construction works in late 2026. NZTA is currently progressing planning and design for the remaining sections of the corridor. The emerging preferred corridor for section 2, Te Hana to Port Marsden Highway, was announced in April 2025.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Absence of economic evaluation of commercial GMO raises concerns
Photo / Food HQ Letter of the week Gene technology - at what cost? The Government is hypocritical in claiming it is over-riding local government powers for economic reasons when it is already doing so in the Gene Technology Bill without any economic risk-benefit analysis. The absence of an economic evaluation of the
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Government, Opposition Scrap Over Common Infrastructure Ground
Article – RNZ Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has agreed to work with his counterparts on the 30-year plan, but the discussion got heated. A reference to $250,000 was corrected to $250 million in this story. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature – and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to 'start on a positive note' on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. 'I agree,' Bishop said. 'That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in government.' The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. 'At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough,' he said, garnering an emphatic 'yeah' from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. 'You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place,' he said. McAnulty agreed with an agreement to disagree. 'We think some of the things you've done are stupid… what I would like to see is a commitment,' he said. 'There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response.' More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop: 'I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point … we may not always agree. 'For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions. McAnulty: 'We know where we're at with that.' Bishop: 'You sure?' McAnulty: 'Yes, I am actually… this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. 'This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other.' Bishop: 'Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid.' McAnulty: 'Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves.' Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and 'sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate'. McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. 'The point is to have… almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline,' Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster – a former Wellington mayor – said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. 'Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it – but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money,' he said. 'I'd rather they just do it.' 'Enough of those mandates for councils,' interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. 'We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing,' Bishop responded. Clashes over cancellations While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. 'Depends exactly what you're talking about,' Bishop said. 'I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact.' 'So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?' McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. 'Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. 'Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. 'It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'.' Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest – which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? 'You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening,' Bishop concluded – or seemed to. 'The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land.' 'Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords,' Genter fired back. Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers – a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December. The minister did not have the latest numbers, 'because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates', but the agency was making 'good progress' and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250 million allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract – whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities – with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: 'And the minister doesn't even know … that's very disappointing.' Bishop: 'Yes. So's your behaviour.' Utikere: 'No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive – that is our responsibility. 'It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget.' Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too – after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would – in turn – have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it.
