Do I Have To Pay For My Partner's Care?

Send your questions to susan.edmunds@rnz.co.nz
If one person in a de facto relationship needs permanent medical care, does the Government require the other partner to pay for the care once the unwell patient's funds run out?
The basic answer to your question is that when your partner is being assessed for their ability to pay for their care, your income and assets will usually be taken into account.
If you're referring to medical care in a rest home setting, your assets and personal income affect whether your partner will qualify for a residential care subsidy.
"People who need residential care are required to pay for it themselves, if they can afford to do so. If they cannot afford it, they may be eligible for a residential care subsidy, which Health New Zealand pays directly to the care provider," said Ministry of Social Development group general manager for client service delivery Graham Allpress.
"MSD's role is to check whether people qualify for this 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."
People can qualify for the subsidy if they are 50 to 64, single and without dependent children, or over 65 and meet the income and means test. That means, even if your partner's funds have run out, your assets could still be taken into account.
If only one partner needs care, the couple combined need to have assets of no more than $155,873 not including the family home and car, or $284,636 if you do want the home and car in the assessment.
If it's other types of care that you're thinking of, it could be a good idea to contact Health NZ for a needs assessment.
There are options such as the supported living payment but eligibility for this is assessed on a household income basis, too.
I'm currently a NZ tax resident living in NZ, but previously lived in Australia (over a decade ago) and purchased shares on the ASX that I continue to own and receive dividends for (which I declare as part of my income). If I sold these shares now, worth about $150,000, what taxes would they be subject to? Specifically, would I have to pay a capital gains tax on the increased share value (as I would if I were an Australian tax resident).
This is probably a question for an accountant with expertise in Australian tax.
Based on information available online, it seems that you potentially should have paid tax on the shares in Australia when you stopped being an Australian resident.
Assuming that didn't happen, the Australian Tax Office is likely to be expecting capital gains tax to be paid on them when they are sold.
You aren't likely to have any New Zealand tax obligations.
Tax experts tell me that the authorities have access to a lot of data these days so it's possible that the Australian Tax Office will find out about any share sale and might get in touch with you.
I am 78 years of age and still work part time and also still contribute to my KiwiSaver. Am I eligible for the government contribution?
Sorry, no. While the government said it was going to start making contributions to 16 and 17-year-olds' accounts, it hasn't budged on the upper limit of 65.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsroom

a day ago

• Newsroom

Seymour's ‘light up' message alarms tobacco researchers

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour's comments to a London audience calling smokers 'fiscal heroes' – and declaring people should 'light up' to save their government's balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say. Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as 'quite evil' the Labour government's plan to create a smokefree generation. Early in its term, the coalition Government sparked controversy by repealing a law that would have banned the sale of tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009 and dramatically reduced both the number of outlets able to sell tobacco and the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month. Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been 'quite evil, in a way' and described smokers as 'fiscal heroes'. 'If you want to save your country's balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you're a hero,' he said to laughter from the audience. Seymour told Newsroom his remarks were based on arguments he made before about the role of the Government when it came to smoking. 'I'm not seriously suggesting that we should encourage people to smoke to save the Government money. It's clearly an absurd statement, but you do have to have a bit of a sense of humour in this life, otherwise it would be too dull.' The state should make sure the public was aware of the dangers of smoking, while stopping smokers from doing harm to others (such as through second-hand smoke) and ensuring they did not impose financial costs on others. 'As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?' (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year's NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.) Seymour said it was 'just a sad fact' that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses. 'If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.' However, he backtracked on his suggestion the last Government's smokefree generation plans were 'quite evil', saying: 'I'm not sure that was the right word, on reflection. 'I certainly think the idea that, in 30 years' time, someone's going to have to prove that they're 49 rather than 47 does seem draconian – it seems almost a bit of an Orwellian situation.' While the Adam Smith Institute's event page billed Seymour as the Deputy Prime Minister, he said his speech was delivered in a private capacity rather than on behalf of the Government, while he had not used taxpayer money for his travel (he also confirmed the Institute did not cover any of his costs). Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says the last Labour government's smokefree policy was fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds. Photo: Marc Daalder Labour Party health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom the minister's remarks showed the Government had the wrong priorities when it came to its smokefree policy. 'They are prioritising balancing the books on the misery done to smokers due to the harms of tobacco.' Verrall said there was clear evidence of tobacco's cost to the health system, and the last government's smokefree generation policy had been 'fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds'. 'This is an addictive product: it is unique in that it kills half the people who use it. It's not like the more nuanced debates we have about … social media for kids.' University of Otago associate professor Andrew Waa told Newsroom Seymour's 'perverse' arguments were further evidence of the Government placing tobacco tax revenue over other concerns. 'It's literally blood money: it's money that the Government taxes on a deadly product, and yet they're still treating it as a profit margin for them.' Waa said the minister's comments ignored the social costs of tobacco, and would only help an industry 'intent on exploiting addiction at whatever cost'. 'I don't know if it's naive, or if it's [his] ideology that it's all personal choice – there's no choice when it comes to smoking some of these things. 'There's a reason why certain communities are more likely to smoke, because they get tobacco products shoved in their face all the time; by the time they decide to think that they don't wanna use the stuff, it's too late.' Janet Hoek, the co-director of tobacco control research partnership ASPIRE Aotearoa, told Newsroom that the comments were 'really ridiculous and reprehensible'. 'It just seems incredibly disappointing that Mr Seymour apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that addiction, and early and often painful death, are a good way to generate government revenue.' Hoek said the environmental and productivity costs associated with smoking also needed to be taken into account, as did the social harm done to communities when their loved ones died prematurely. While some politicians dismissed public health experts as 'muppets … living in ivory towers', the suggestion that smokers were making an informed choice was itself out of touch with reality.

Scoop

2 days ago

• Scoop

Tonga's Health System Hit By Cyberattack

A team of Australian cyber experts flew to Tonga this week after the country's National Health Information System was breached, leading to a demand for payment from the hackers. Talanoa O Tonga reports the Health Minister Dr Ana Akauola saying the system has been shut down, and staff are handling data manually. Dr Akauola said that hackers encrypted the system and demanded payment, but she has assured MPs "the hackers won't damage the information" on the system. This system was introduced in 2019 with Asian Development Bank (ADB) support to digitise Tonga's health records before going "live" in 2021. Police Minister Paula Piukala was critical of past governments for ignoring warnings that Tonga's digital infrastructure is not fully prepared for these threats. Journalist Sifa Pomana said the hackers are demanding millions of dollars, according to Tonga Police. Residents are being urged to bring essential records to the hospital to help with manual record-keeping.

Scoop

3 days ago

• Scoop

Govt Launches Suicide Prevention Plan

A five-year plan aiming to tackle New Zealand's 'stubbornly high suicide rates' has been released today. The plan includes new strategies like peer support roles for mental health patients in emergency departments, and crisis recovery cafés so people don't have to resort to a hospital and can receive care in the community. The SMC asked experts to comment. Jacqui Maguire, Registered Clinical Psychologist, comments: 'New Zealand's suicide statistics remain a source of national shame. The Government's new Suicide Prevention Action Plan signals good intent, but without meaningful detail, it is difficult to assess its true impact. 'The most obvious gap in the plan is workforce development. Peer support and coordination roles are valuable, but the plan does not outline the training and retention of psychologists, social workers and mental health nurses who are needed to meet demand. Across both public and NGO services, workforce shortages, not just budget, are a real constraint. If we do not have qualified professionals we cannot deliver the required scale of care. 'Secondly, I believe the plan could be bolder and more detailed. For example, Every emergency department should have skilled, trained support not just the 8 regions outlined. Peer support is already being trialled, including in Wellington ED, but suicide risk exists nationwide. The alcohol and suicide link is acknowledged, but there is no clear policy action mentioned. For example, will the Plan tackle outlet density or alcohol pricing? We need to ensure therapy is accessible to all. The current model excludes many middle-income earners, who fall outside subsidy thresholds and cannot afford private care. Unless you are under 25 and covered by PIKI, access can be incredibly limited. That is neither equitable nor sustainable. The plan also speaks to hope, wellbeing and prevention yet makes little reference to the deeper drivers of suicide such as loneliness, housing stress, cultural disconnection and income insecurity. If we want significant suicide reduction, these issues are central. While the plan refers to data and information sharing, it does not address the kind of infrastructure needed to enable real-time, coordinated care. Particularly between crisis services and mental health teams. Without this, continuity of care will likely remain fragmented. Advertisement - scroll to continue reading 'The plan sounds promising on paper. However without a clear picture of who is delivering what, and how services will be integrated, it is hard to see how this plan will drive the scale of change New Zealand urgently needs to meaningfully reduce suicide.' No conflict of interest declared. Anthony O'Brien, Associate Professor in Mental Health Nursing, University of Waikato, comments: 'It is encouraging to see this new action plan on suicide. There is some tension between the action areas of the plan, and other areas of policy. Some actions require no funding but have the potential to limit suicide risk. 'For example the role of alcohol is highlighted, but curbs on alcohol advertising are not suggested. There is no plan to act on the role of social media in fueling suicide risk. There is limited recognition in the plan of the increased risk of suicide among people who are not employed, despite the report identifying social determinants contributing to suicide risk. 'It is good to see recognition of how various workforces can respond to suicidal thinking and support for those bereaved by suicide. There could be more recognition of the role of primary health care. It was surprising that the Access and Choice Programme was not included in current health-led suicide prevention supports. Also absent is the role of school nurses who in addition to providing support for students experiencing distress could be mobilised as school-based champions of suicide prevention. 'Given the commitment to measurable outcomes it would have been good to see some recognition of a suicide research strategy.'