ACT candidate Paul Henry has put forward a plan to let teachers remove badly behaved students from class, use reasonable force in certain situations, and fine parents who don't get involved when their child's behaviour gets out of hand.

Henry announced the policy in Auckland on Sunday. He is running as an ACT Party list candidate in the 2026 election.

The main idea is to change the rules around when teachers can step in. Right now, teachers can physically hold back a student as a last resort to stop someone getting hurt, but only if the action is reasonable and proportionate. Henry said the rules are too unclear and many teachers are too worried about getting into trouble to act.

Under ACT's plan, teachers could send disruptive students to a supervised space and would have legal protection if they use a reasonable and proportionate intervention to stop harm or property damage. Henry said this would give teachers confidence and the power to restore order.

Henry said the policy would allow reasonable force in specific situations but would not bring back corporal punishment, which is physical punishment like smacking.

If a student assaults a teacher, staff member, or another student, they would be immediately removed and given a stand-down or suspension, which means being formally kept away from school. Serious assaults would be reported to Police Youth Aid, the part of Police that handles young offenders.

Parents would also face new responsibilities. If a student's behaviour is serious or keeps happening, parents would have to attend a meeting. If they don't show up without a good reason, they could be fined up to $300 for a first offence and up to $3000 after that. Parents could also have to pay for deliberate damage their child causes at school, and that money could be chased as a debt if unpaid.

The existing law already lets teachers physically restrain students as a last resort, but ACT says the wording is too vague for teachers to feel confident using it. The proposal would keep the reasonable and proportionate standard but try to make it clearer.

Classroom disruption and teachers leaving the profession are already hot topics in education. The idea of fining parents and making them pay for damage would be a big change to how the current law works.

The broader context here is that whether these fines would actually hold up in law is uncertain. New Zealand's Bill of Rights Act 1990 protects people from penalties that are out of proportion, and that right could be tested if the policy ever made it to Parliament.

Schools can already report serious assaults to Police Youth Aid, but they are not required to. Making it mandatory would take away principals' ability to decide for themselves in those cases.

In political terms, the policy matters less for its individual pieces and more for what it signals. ACT is treating classroom discipline like a law-and-order issue, connecting teacher authority with physical safety and linking parental responsibility to money. That will appeal to voters worried about classroom violence, but education groups are likely to question whether fines and force provisions actually fix the causes of bad behaviour or just move the problem somewhere else.

Whether any of this happens depends on how ACT does in the election. Henry is a list candidate, which means his chance of getting into Parliament depends on his ranking on the party list and how many seats ACT wins. Even then, the policy would only advance if a coalition agreement included it.

Source: RNZ