ACT candidate Paul Henry has released a classroom discipline policy that would let teachers remove seriously disruptive students from class, use reasonable force in specific situations, and impose financial penalties on parents who don't engage when their child's behaviour escalates.

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

The centrepiece of the policy is a proposed change to Section 99 of the Education and Training Act 2020. That section currently allows school staff to physically restrain students as a last resort to prevent harm, as long as the method used is reasonable and proportionate. Henry said the wording is too vague and many teachers are unwilling to intervene because they fear legal repercussions, taking what he called the "easy road out."

Under ACT's plan, teachers could send disruptive students to a supervised space and would have legal protection when using a reasonable and proportionate intervention to prevent harm or damage to property. Henry said this would give teachers clear legal backing and the power to restore order in the classroom.

Henry was clear that the policy would allow teachers to use reasonable force in defined circumstances, but said it would not permit corporal punishment.

The policy would also make assaulting a teacher, staff member, or student a trigger for immediate removal and a mandatory stand-down or suspension. Stand-downs and suspensions are formal steps under the Education and Training Act that temporarily remove a student from school. Serious assaults would be referred to Police Youth Aid, the section of Police that deals with young offenders.

On parental accountability, ACT would require parents to get involved when a student's behaviour becomes serious or repeated. Parents who fail to attend a mandatory meeting without a reasonable excuse could be fined up to $300 for a first offence and up to $3000 for subsequent offences. Parents could also be held financially responsible for the cost of deliberate property damage caused by their child at school, with the cost recoverable as a debt if unpaid.

Henry framed the proposal as giving teachers the legal certainty they say they currently lack. The existing Section 99 already permits physical restraint as a last resort, but ACT argues the statutory language is too vague for teachers to feel confident using it. The proposal would keep the "reasonable and proportionate" standard but make its boundaries more explicit.

The policy arrives as classroom disruption and teacher retention remain live issues in education policy debate. The fines for parents who skip mandatory meetings, and the prospect of parents being liable for deliberate property damage, would be a significant expansion of parental accountability under the Education and Training Act.

The broader context here is that whether such fines would survive legislative scrutiny is an open question. Under the Bill of Rights Act 1990, people have the right to be free from disproportionate penalties, and that could be tested if the policy ever reached Parliament.

Referring serious assaults to Police Youth Aid would formalise a pathway that, in practice, schools can already use but are not currently required to by law. Making it mandatory would remove principals' discretion in those cases.

For those watching politics, the policy is notable less for its individual parts than for the political signal it sends. ACT is framing classroom discipline as a law-and-order issue within the education portfolio, linking teacher authority to physical safety and tying parental responsibility to financial consequences. That framing will likely resonate with voters concerned about classroom violence, but it will also draw scrutiny from education sector groups who may question whether fines and expanded force provisions address the underlying causes of disruptive behaviour or simply shift the burden elsewhere.

The policy's fate depends on ACT's position after the election. As a list candidate, Henry's ability to advance it depends on his own ranking, the party's overall seat count, and whether a coalition agreement would include any of its provisions.

Source: RNZ