Should she be paying?

The Press has the story of Lee Brown who gets $255 a week from WINZ as a solo dad as he is looking after two kids during the day, while his ex wife works.  Now good on him for that.

$255 a week isn’t a lot.  He does also get a house for only $84 a week which is a significant subsidy (I’d estimate at least $150 a week less than market) and he is also working eight hours a week which is at least another $100.

I wonder if his ex wife pays him for looking after the kids during the day?  I mean she is presumably working fulltime.  If the roles were reversed you would expect a father who works fulltime to pay money to his ex wife if she is looking after the kids?

Now sometimes that money has to go to WINZ to as part-subsidy of the benefit.  But as far as I can tell he is not getting paid by WINZ for care of those two children, but for a third who is at school and presumably from a different partner.

I don’t think there is anything to criticise Lee Brown about.  He seems a very devoted Dad and is working part-time.  It’s more whether the mother who is working fulltime (presumably) should be contributing?  I suspect there would be little question if the roles were reversed.