Opinion: Will Mayor Drysdale Stand for Fairness – or Just When It Benefits Him?

​

---

Union crusader Mahé Drysdale is no stranger to fighting for fairness. 

Just last year, he and the Athlete’s Co-operative - formed in mid-2022 - took High Performance Sport NZ (HPSNZ) to the Employment Relations Authority, challenging how athletes were classified to deny them proper rights and protections. He stood up against backroom decisions, lack of consultation, and the exploitation of power structures. He demanded transparency, accountability, and a fair process.
​
As far back as 2016 - following his final Olympic appearance in the black singlet - Drysdale has been rallying rowers and cyclists together in a bid for a bigger slice of the funding/decision-making pie.

“We want a better environment for athletes, we want to be respected and we want to be a part of designing the system that delivers results in New Zealand and unfortunately at the moment that is not the case,” he said.

“We are told what, how and why we are doing things and so this is our opportunity to try and negotiate co-designing a system that we’re all happy with.”
He cautioned against rocking the boat when livelihoods were on the line. 

“If you’re against what they want you’re always liable of having that funding cut.”
The fact Drysdale only began to properly organise the athletes once he’d hung up his oars - including the $60,000 performance enhancement grant (PEGs) afforded Olympic gold medalists - is neither here nor there.

“Right now, I’ve got nothing to lose. I’m out of the sport,” he said. 

The athletes’ union’s litigation surged out to an early lead in the landmark employment case in early-2024 when authority member Rowan Anderson found the government agency was obligated to engage in good-faith collective bargaining with the cooperative representing around 60 elite cyclists and rowers. Government-funded HPSNZ struck back in January of this year, when the agency scored a key victory in overturning that decision in the Employment Court.

All signs point to Drysdale and his comrades not backing down, with strong indications the union he represents is keen to draw out the costly legal process even further with a subsequent challenge in the Court of Appeal. 

But now, as Tauranga’s mayor, he seems to have forgotten those principles.

The Marine Precinct sale, a multi-million dollar public asset handover, was pushed through without proper consultation, without an open bidding process, and at a price far below its real value. Local marine businesses, who have been the backbone of this industry, were effectively shut out of the decision-making process​.

Sound familiar?
When it was about Drysdale and his fellow athletes, he fought against this kind of treatment. He called out the system for sidelining the very people it was meant to support. Yet, under his leadership, Tauranga City Council (TCC) is doing the exact same thing, but this time, it’s small business owners and ratepayers who are being left in the dark.

Now Drysdale is singing a very different tune - in Facebook comment sections no less. Responding to a Tauranga ratepayer he advocated for making the best of a bad deal in lieu of backing out of a sale he and the council had every right to get out of once an injunction was granted by the High Court.

“We have so far taken the best course action for the interests of the city. If you are a Ratepayer how much of Ratepayers money would you be prepared to risk in cancelling the deal? 

“We will continue to make the best of it. From your comments you clearly don’t understand the full situation.”

A Bad Deal for Tauranga, A Great Deal for a Private Investor
Let’s be clear about what’s happening here:

• A $33 million public asset was sold for just $14 million, behind closed doors​
• The buyer didn’t have to go through an open market bidding process, meaning the community never got to see if there were better offers.
• Ratepayers are now footing the bill for an additional $30 million in infrastructure upgrades in the form of Pontoon structures that will benefit a private company, while local marine businesses are pushed out​
• The new owner can charge 35% in management fees and take 40% of the remaining revenue, while Tauranga carries all the financial risk​
• If the buyer flips the land later? They profit, while the community is left with nothing.

Would Drysdale have accepted this kind of deal if it were about athletes’ rights? Would he have allowed HPSNZ to hand-pick who succeeded and who got cut out? The answer is a resounding no; he took them to court (very likely repeatedly) instead.

So why, as mayor, is he actively defending a process that shuts out local businesses, locks the public out of decision-making, and leaves Tauranga residents paying the bill?
Fairness Can’t Be Selective
This is a defining moment for Mayor Drysdale.
If he truly believes in transparency, fair process, and protecting people from being shut out by powerful interests, then he should apply those same principles here. That means:

1. Supporting an independent investigation into the Marine Precinct sale to uncover how this deal was made and why better options were ignored​
2. Explaining why small business owners were excluded from a GENUINE consultation process, despite years of working within the precinct​
3. Committing to policy reforms that ensure public assets aren’t handed off in closed-door deals ever again.

Tauranga ratepayers, small business owners, and the marine industry deserve a mayor who applies the same fairness he fought for once his own athletic career was no longer on the line.

Drysdale is standing up for transparency for athletes. Will he do the same for Tauranga?

If not, the public has every right to ask: Was his fight about principles, or just about himself?
​
More to the point, based on his leadership and public comments, is it he who clearly doesn’t understand the full situation?

- Erika Harvey is an advocate for transparency and fairness. This Op-Ed reflects her views on the importance of holding leaders accountable.