What's the story? Willie Jackson and MUMA

Allegations of bullying, union-busting, and the story legacy media won't touch

Accusations have been flying for more than a week between independent or ‘new’ media and the legacy lot (mainstream media). Yours truly has been guilty of a few exasperated contributions to the outrage also so do not take this as Ani on a soapbox.

The argument is over what the media should report on. What is newsworthy? What is a story? And on the flipside, what is a cover up? Why are the media burying what appears to be a significant scandal? It has now descended into embarrassing levels of stupidity with one member of the mainstream media trying to characterise the story as an ‘attack on Māori’. A negative story featuring Māori is not an attack on Māori anymore than reporting on Trevor Mallard’s many examples of poor behaviour is an attack on old white guys.

Given the mainstream media, for whatever reason, has decided to bury the story at the centre of this, I have decided to try pull it together into a piece so you can make your own mind up.

---

The story is about Manukau Urban Māori Authority (MUMA), CEO Tania Rangiheuea, her husband Labour MP Willie Jackson, his life-long friend and union stalwart Matt McCarten, the Labour Party, and various other peripheral bits and bobs. There is a lot of documentation… emails, letters, legal notices, internal messages. As well as allegations of bullying, cronyism, union-busting, and outright political interference being lobbed around and yet, the country’s major newsrooms behave as if nothing is happening.

Willie Jackson and Tania Rangiheuea

This is a story about workers in a supposedly community-focused Māori authority being crushed under a toxic workplace culture. It’s about a union advocate, one of the most seasoned in the country, being trespassed for trying to help those workers. It’s about a Chief Executive accused by her staff of intimidation and vindictiveness. And crucially, it’s about former Employment Minister Willie Jackson, intervening again and again to shield his wife from accountability.

It begins with the complaints. Senior managers describing a “culture of fear” and a “dictatorship” at MUMA. Staff reduced to tears. People “frightened” and “scared to speak” to their own managers. Allegations that the CEO yelled, belittled, manipulated, and punished staff who dared to raise concerns.

These weren’t vague allegations either. They were formal written reports delivered to the Board Chair and corroborated by others. The MUMA workplace was in bad shape, staff wanted help and some were considering resignation. Others described feeling sick at the thought of returning to work.

A draft ‘Terms of Reference’ dated March 2025 outlining plans for an independent investigation into bullying, poor culture, and leadership at MUMA has been leaked by Cameron Slater. Senior Māori administrators, Deborah Mahuta-Coyle and Mike Tukaki, collected evidence of serious misconduct and recommended the removal of Tania Rangiheuea as CEO. Both Mahuta-Coyle and Tukaki are, according to Cam Slater, ex-staff from Willie Jackson’s ministerial office so hardly hostile reviewers.

The Board Chair Mike Hinton and his Deputy Chair met with Rangiheuea to discuss the report and recommendations and, by all accounts, this meeting went badly.

>WILLIE JACKSON ENTERS THE CHAT<

Following this meeting, Willie Jackson contacted Hinton and announced that he was his wife’s “employment advocate”. He demanded a meeting and it is alleged that he warned the Chair that if he did not assist in covering up the allegations and provide a written apology, he would be removed and lose his $70,000 stipend.

In a matter of days, Jackson appears to have delivered on the threat and Hinton was pushed out of his role. This followed an orchestrated coup of sorts where Jackson called individual board members and organised an ambush. There is no doubt that the confrontation was designed to overthrow the Chair as by the end of the meeting Hinton discovered his email and phone had been cut off.

Consolidating power in the midst of the chaos, Willie Jackson immediately made Kiri Skipworth (his electorate agent), Jerome Mika (senior Labour figure) and Dr Ella Henry new board members. There was no visible appointment process.

As the year progressed, internal conditions deteriorated. By mid-2025, staff morale was in a worse state. Leaked board documents show discussions about the urgent need to bolster employee wellbeing, going so far as to suggest using thousands of unused Pak’nSave vouchers as morale boosters. This raises questions as to where these vouchers came from and if it is appropriate for them to be used in this way. MUMA has received a lot of Government funding for community initiatives at which vouchers were meant to be given to the community. But that is likely an entirely other story.

The mates in an appearance on Marae before Willie Jackson entered Parliament.

Feeling powerless, MUMA workers reached out to Matt McCarten, one of the most recognisable and influential figures in New Zealand’s union movement. Over several decades he has built a reputation as a relentless advocate for workers. He is a founder of Unite Union, and later was Chief of Staff for the Labour Party.

The MUMA workers joined McCarten’s One Union and were primarily concerned about bullying and wage theft. Leaked documents show that McCarten tried repeatedly to resolve the issues for the workers through informal channels. He contacted the Board, sought meetings, offered mediation pathways, and attempted to shield employees from retaliation.

When those efforts were stonewalled, he persisted, warning MUMA leadership that the situation was becoming untenable.

This next part, in my opinion, is where the real story lies.

Willie Jackson has long styled himself as a champion of working people, with deep roots in the trade union movement and Māori advocacy. Before entering Parliament, he held leadership roles within urban Māori organisations and worked closely with unions on employment and training initiatives. His political career elevated him further as a senior Labour MP, he served as Minister of Employment. Jackson has frequently invoked his background in union organising and community leadership as proof of his commitment to fairness in the workplace. He has positioned himself as someone who understands both the challenge of precarious work and the importance of strong collective representation.

It is this history, his public identity as a workers’ advocate and former union leader, that makes his alleged behaviour in the MUMA scandal so jarring. He built his political brand on defending workers’ rights and here he is stepping into a situation to shut down staff complaints.

Like a corporate crony fat cat capitalist, Jackson next proceeded to derail a legitimate union effort and trespass the union representatives. In his capacity as the Chairperson of Ngā Whare Waatea Marae the owner of the land MUMA operates on, Willie Jackson wrote to One Union notifying interim President Kirsty Charles that the union and McCarten were to be trespassed due to:

“…repeated breach of tikanga and kaupapa Māori by Matt McCarten at Nga Whare Waatea Marae, and the threat his presence poses to the integrity, purpose, and mana of the marae community.

Matt McCarten initiated a process for bargaining for a collective agreement without consultation, consent, or any regard for the tikanga, kawa or mana of our marae.”

Matt McCarten responded to the letter a couple of days later expressing surprise and pointing out to the former Employment Minister:

“You acknowledge the intention of this trespass notice is to frustrate the bargaining process with MUMA as the employer. This reasoning is not legally tenable…

…Under section 20 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, authorised union representatives have a statutory right to enter workplaces where their members work, for purposes that include collective bargaining and engagement on employment matters. This right may only be limited in accordance with the law, and not unilaterally by the employer or a landlord, where it conflicts with the lawful exercise of those rights…

….It is deeply disappointing that you as a former trade union leader, and as a current member of parliament who voted for right of unions to access workplaces, now actively proposes to breach this law.”

He also followed it up with an informal email to his old friend Willie attempting to suggest compromises as to how they could move forward.

McCarten’s shock at Jackson’s behaviour should be echoed throughout the union movement. What he recounts as unfolding at MUMA is, by every meaningful measure, classic union-busting behaviour, something normally associated with hostile corporate employers, not a Māori authority led by people with long histories in the labour movement.

It is very cynical of Jackson to invoke a breach of tikanga. It is a blatant tactical use of cultural authority to block staff from exercising their legal rights. Trespassing a union advocate in the middle of bargaining is textbook interference with workers’ rights to organise, seek representation, and negotiate fair conditions. When coupled with the timing, employees raising bullying and pay concerns, it is difficult to interpret the move as anything other than a deliberate attempt to shut down collective action and intimidate both staff and their advocate.

On 20 August 2025, McCarten wrote directly to the MUMA Board. His detailed letter is an exhaustive, ten-page account outlining serious allegations of bullying, dysfunction, retaliatory behaviour, and political interference within the organisation. He begins by stressing that the situation has become “untenable” and cannot be ignored any longer, noting that earlier attempts at informal resolution were repeatedly dismissed. McCarten describes multiple cases of alleged bullying by CEO Tania Rangiheuea, employees being humiliated, underpaid, pushed to tears, threatened, or subjected to retaliatory disciplinary processes. He also details systemic issues: opaque pay scales, favouritism, erratic HR practices, and widespread fear among staff.

The letter tells the board, what they presumably already know, and directly alleges that Willie Jackson orchestrated the removal of the Board Chair to stop an investigation into his wife’s conduct, that he threatened the Chair, contacted board members individually, and helped install new members aligned with him. The trespass order issued against McCarten and One Union is presented as retaliation for assisting workers seeking a collective agreement. He concludes by urging the Board to engage in a proper resolution process, warning that failing to act could trigger legal action, external investigations, or public exposure. The letter is methodical, detailed, and clearly written as a last attempt at internal accountability.

Unfortunately, this letter fell on deaf ears and the drama continued. Staff began talking to media, not that their stories were ever printed and Jackson was seen at MUMA “coordinating strategy”. Cam Slater reports that staff were repeatedly called to meetings in which they were threatened with dismissal or contract losses if they spoke out.

In September, Matt McCarten, former Chief of Staff for the Labour Party, wrote to the party’s current leader to express grave concerns. He has never received a response from Chris Hipkins. He also provided a copy of his ten-page letter to the board.

Matt McCarten then also wrote to Speaker Gerry Brownlee from One Union. You can read that letter here.

He told the Speaker that:

“Willie has acted in behaviours over the past few months that are surely contrary to what is expected of a member of parliament. I raised this matter with the NZ Labour leader Rt Hon Chris Hipkins MP on 5 September without success.”

Matt McCarten’s feelings of betrayal are apparent in his writing. He is devastated that his friend of several decades who he has fought beside in the union movement has turned out to be no better than those they have always railed against.

“The sad sight of Willie, a current front bench Labour member … coordinating an anti-union and anti-worker endeavour to cover up bullying and misconduct by a boss is deep tragedy…

…“I have been a close friend of Willie for 40 years … I feel even more betrayed and more upset at his behaviour.”

McCarten seems to be arguing that Chris Hipkins and Glen Bennett (Chief Whip) should be hauled in front of the Privileges Committee. This seems a tenuous bow to draw, but there are certainly questions for Hipkins to answer.

“I then wrote to Chris Hipkins outlining the full story and requesting he tell Willie to just sort the matter out. I was informed he did read the letter, but then went to ground. Good grief. Labour’s chief whip later claimed a Labour member of parliament brazenly using their power to cover up bullying of employees was not a matter for the party to be involved. Unbelievable! A case could be made the Privileges Committee should hold the Leader and the chief whip accountable for their actions in covering up the abuse. I have attached the correspondence with the Labour Leader’s office.”

Labour has gone to ground and the union movement as a whole seems unconcerned that the party their dues prop up is engaging in dirty union-busting behaviour. The silence of the media as well is its own story inside this story. The below email sent by Stuff journalist Tova O’Brien more than a month ago shows that she had done some investigating and clearly unearthed enough from MUMA staff for a solid story. But it has never been published.

O’Brien (no relation to me) gave CEO Tania Rangiheuea a tight deadline to respond to her email, but something must have happened in the eight hours after she hit send as no reporting has materialised.

It would be fair to wonder if legal letters might have been sent Stuff’s way. Around the same time as Stuff was nosing around, the overthrown Chair received three legal letters in just four days before MUMA’s representation at Chapman Tripp filed proceedings against him. And it would be difficult, having read O’Brien’s email to argue that there simply wasn’t a story to tell.

“Even if you don’t think the allegations stack up, the fact a union leader is accusing a Labour MP of workplace bullying and locking a union out is newsworthy. You would expect the media would at least do a “He says, she says”.”

David Farrar

I am advised that there has been much consternation among the legacy media that the independents are so worked up about this story. They are meant to decide what the news is, see. For decades, the elitist legacy media have operated as though they and they alone set the national agenda. They decided which scandals mattered, which politicians were untouchable, and which communities could be scrutinised, and vice versa. But that model is collapsing. Independent outlets, social media, and citizen journalists are now breaking stories that the big platforms either ignore or move on from too quickly.

The Willie Jackson/MUMA saga is the latest example. While alternative media pour over documents, timeline discrepancies, and allegations of bullying and union-busting, the legacy press sneers at them, discredits them, and pointedly looks the other way. The story in their eyes is tarnished because Cameron Slater broke it on his podcast. What they forget is that is “insider politics”.

New Zealanders don’t trust the mainstream media. The polls are painfully honest about this fact. New Zealanders still want news though! They want to know what is going on, but they just don’t trust the biases and agendas of the legacy media. I know this because my readers tell me this every week. They want researched investigations. And they are not snooty like the media who turn their nose up at the interlopers reporting news from individual or alternative platforms. They want a functioning media because it benefits us when we have robust scrutiny of the actions of those in power. But in the absence of the legacy media fulfilling this role, they are looking elsewhere.

And that raises an uncomfortable question: why are the media avoiding this story and others like it? Is it a reluctance to report anything substantial about Māori politics in case they’re accused of insensitivity or racism? Or is it something more structural, like the argument making the rounds that Willie Jackson still enjoys a soft touch from parts of the press because, as broadcasting minister, he helped dole out millions in funding to media organisations? These theories persist because the silence is conspicuous.

Andrew Dickens on NewstalkZB went so far as to claim the scrutiny is “an attack on Māori” while simultaneously insisting the story isn’t newsworthy. He hasn’t done anything illegal! Dickens cried. But illegality is not the threshold for newsworthiness. Plenty of political scandals that have reshaped governments never involved criminal convictions.

This story matters because it goes to Willie Jackson’s credibility. A man who built his political identity on being a champion of workers and a stalwart of the union movement. If the allegations are accurate, they shatter that image. They also raise serious questions about Labour’s internal culture and its willingness to confront misconduct involving its own senior figures.

The other deafening silence comes from the unions themselves. The movement that claims to defend workers’ rights suddenly falls quiet the moment those rights are trampled by a political ally. That is the story. When advocacy evaporates because the wrong person is accused, that exposes where the real loyalties lie. In any healthy democracy, that contradiction alone would be front-page news.

P.S. For all the documentation and original reports including the podcast in which Matt McCarten first spoke up go to Good Oil. Also Cam Slater has since claimed that Deborah Mahuta-Coyle has now been sacked from MUMA.