NZ Herald 18 July 2026

AThis is a tricky issue, and your situation is becoming increasingly common, as more and more 65-pluses have what might be called “live apartners”.

Your summary of the law is correct, says Graham Allpress of the Ministry of Social Development.

“When a person applies for assistance from MSD, we need to consider their relationship status and other family circumstances.

“MSD’s role is to check whether people qualify for a residential care subsidy by performing a ‘financial means assessment’.

“To get the subsidy, a person’s income and assets must be under a certain amount. If they are in a relationship, the combined income and assets of both parties must be under a certain amount.”

There are two issues for you and your partner. One is whether you are “in a relationship” for these purposes? But there are also questions around your partner’s use of a trust.

“A trust can have an impact on a Residential Care Subsidy, because clients need to use the resources available to them before seeking financial assistance,” says Allpress. “We might expect a trust to provide resources to the client to help pay for their care.” For more on this see this page.

This seems fair to both you and taxpayers in general. It doesn’t seem right for people to use government funding for their care while they have money in trusts.

What about your savings?

MSD’s position is based on “the notion that for a person who is married, or living in the nature of marriage, spouses and de facto partners owe primary obligations of support to each other, and that the state’s support obligations are secondary,” says Allpress.

When considering whether a client is in a relationship, Work and Income looks at the couple’s emotional commitment and financial interdependence.

Emotional commitment includes:

• “client perception — the client and the other adult see their relationship as a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union; they consider the relationship is likely to continue
• “public perception — they are viewed as a couple by their community (this may include their family, local church, sports clubs etc)
• “history — the length of time the client and the other adult have known each other and/or have resided at the same address; shared children.”

Financial interdependence includes:

• “joint bank accounts, assets or joint loans/credit
• “joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any joint liabilities e.g. both the client and the other adult own a rental property
• “significant pooling of financial resources especially in relation to major financial commitments eg saving for a house, car or holiday.”

For the complete lists, see the Emotional Commitment and Financial Interdependence pages on the Work and Income website.

Adds Allpress, “Everyone’s situation is different. We would encourage anyone with questions to get in touch with us to talk through their situation.

“Your letter writer can contact the MSD main help line (0800 559 009) or the MSD Seniors Line (if she is receiving NZ Super) to schedule an appointment with us.” The Seniors Line number is 0800 552 002.

I asked, “If they have that conversation with MSD, does MSD keep records of what is said? Or record the conversation?”

The reply: “It is our practice to keep a record of our conversations, on individual client files.”

From what you’ve said, it seems to me that you might be off the hook. But it’s not my decision to make! You might want to call MSD.

AIn some ways it’s hard to argue with what you say.

But I think you’re overlooking the fact that many people need to be “nudged” into doing what’s best for them financially in the long run.

It’s a bit like eating well or exercising. Individuals are better off — and therefore the country as a whole is better off — if people are healthier. But many people won’t do healthy stuff unless they’re encouraged.

Of course there are also people who won’t eat well, exercise or save for their retirement even with inducements. But many do respond.

I’ve heard KiwiSaver critics say that New Zealanders aren’t saving more since KiwiSaver started, they are just saving in a different way.

But I don’t believe that. So many people have said to me that they are financially better off because of the scheme. They have also learnt heaps about how markets work, and benefitted from the fact that KiwiSaver is pretty highly regulated. They’re less likely to be scammed.

By all means ponder whether compulsion is good or bad. And let’s look hard at the other KiwiSaver changes being suggested. But I can’t agree that this country would benefit from ending KiwiSaver.

ARedundancy at your age is particularly tough, given the ageism that’s common in recruitment practices.

Still, I suggest that you — and your wife for that matter — keep putting the $1,043 each year into KiwiSaver. As you say, getting $261 is not nothing. And if you have three or four years before you turn 65, it will amount to $1,000 or so.

That’s a grand 65^th birthday bash, or perhaps a little birthday trip!

By the way, in the year you turn 65, the government contribution is proportionate to how much of the 1 July to 30 June KiwiSaver year you are under 65.

For example, if you turn 65 on January 1, you would be entitled to half of $261. You would need to contribute half of $1,043. It doesn’t matter when in the year you deposit your money.

AHang on a minute. I’ve been acknowledging the raw deal for the self-employed for some time now!

For example, after last year’s Budget, I wrote in this column: “The biggest losers are probably the self-employed and those not employed. Their only KiwiSaver incentive is the government contribution, and the halving makes it considerably less attractive.”

I did add, though, “Still, it’s worth getting. If you save $20 a week and your savings outside KiwiSaver would have been $100,000, in the scheme they will be $125,000.”

Anyway, let’s look at your situation. Firstly, good on you for putting that money away. Too many self-employed people, perhaps struggling to buy the basics, don’t save.

Should the money go into KiwiSaver or elsewhere? A few comments:

• One clear advantage of elsewhere is that you can withdraw the money any time — unless, of course, you would rather lock it out of the way of temptation!
• Comparing returns over five years is much better than comparing over a shorter period. But you might still find your KiwiSaver returns topping the Sharesies returns in future. There are no guarantees.
• Your ETFs are probably passively run, and therefore charge low fees. Great! I suggest you move your KiwiSaver to a low-fee provider.
• You might want to move out of individual shares into the ETFs sooner. The majority of shares perform worse than the market average, while a few do brilliantly. And most people are lousy at picking those winners.
• I agree that a bit of crypto and precious metals is fine — but not too much.

So where should your future savings go — apart from continuing to put enough into KiwiSaver to get the government’s $261?

Given that we can’t predict whether your ETFs and shares will continue to outperform your KiwiSaver fund, I would be inclined to put half in each. But if you really prefer to concentrate on the ETFs, it probably won’t make that much difference.