Key has a point. New Zealand needs to become more productive, innovative and capable of producing more companies that compete globally. Many of those who took part in the Future of New Zealand debate are focused on just that.
And Rocket Lab is precisely the sort of technology-led, internationally focused business this country has spent years saying it wants to create. Yet as Beck’s wealth has soared alongside Rocket Lab’s success, the conversation has shifted in some quarters to questioning whether anyone should become that rich.
The fact is more Kiwis are now billionaires.
Savvy New Zealanders have continued to accumulate wealth despite a challenging international and domestic economic environment.
The NBR Rich List estimated the wealth of those on the list had grown to $129 billion in 2026. There were 26 billionaires – up from 18 the prior year.
Its top five billionaires are: Mat and Nick Mowbray (Zuru – $20b); Hart (Rank Group – $12.1b); Beck (Rocket Lab – $11b); Goodman family (Goodman Group – $5b) and Todd family (Todd Corporation $3.5b).
The Mowbrays and Hart interests are big political donors to the National and Act parties. Nick Mowbray (and his dad Harry) are particularly vocal on social media, arguing New Zealanders who want a centre-right Government after the November 7 election should vote strategically by giving their party votes to Act or New Zealand First.
But in reality the debate over billionaires has become a proxy for a much bigger question facing voters. It’s not simply about envy but inequality, taxation and – according to some – morality.
Green MP Tamatha Paul ploughed into this at the Herald debate arguing that being a billionaire is immoral. She questioned why nurses, teachers and tradies should face a higher effective tax burden than billionaires.
Her mantra: billionaires do not necessarily get there because they are more talented or work harder than everybody else. They operate within an economy supported by public infrastructure, educated workers, government-funded research, the legal system and, in some cases, direct government assistance.
Inland Revenue’s research makes this harder to dismiss.
IRD’s High Wealth Individuals Research Project examined 311 of New Zealand’s wealthiest families. It found that while the median effective tax rate on their taxable income was about 30%, the rate fell to 8.9% when all economic income, including capital gains, was taken into account.
That does not mean the families were avoiding tax. For many, part of their wealth was accumulated offshore where they faced capital gains tax regimes – just not here.
The IRD research illustrated how the existing system treats different forms of economic income. Much of the wealth examined came from capital gains, which are not generally taxed in the same way as wages and salaries.
There is a counter-argument: a founder might own shares in a company valued at $5b without having anything close to that amount in cash. Much of the wealth may be in the unrealised appreciation in the value of those shares.
The Greens have proposed an annual wealth tax on net assets above $10 million. Labour has proposed a limited capital gains tax on investment and commercial property. National rejects new taxes and emphasises economic growth and investment.
While a clear majority of businesses responding to the Deloitte and Chapman Tripp election survey conducted by BusinessNZ were opposed to wealth taxes, 25.5% supported the introduction.
Technology entrepreneur Haddleton added another dimension.
Haddleton and his late wife Sue built and sold major software businesses, including Adaytum and Anaplan. He is hardly an opponent of wealth creation. But his message at the Future of New Zealand discussion was not simply to cut taxes and leave business alone.
“We didn’t invest in ourselves,” he said, arguing that New Zealand had spent decades “muddling around trying to do this and that”.
His challenge is about what the country does with its capital.
Haddleton has questioned the value of large data centres where substantial economic returns flow offshore, while New Zealand supplies energy without necessarily capturing enough employment, capability or wider domestic benefit. He has also advocated greater investment in areas including energy, satellites, advanced drones and digital infrastructure.
Former Prime Minister Sir John Key (left) and host Ryan Bridge during the NZ Herald Future of New Zealand debate this week. Photo / Dean Purcell
His position on taxation is equally revealing. Haddleton has said he pays capital gains tax in the United States because of his dual citizenship, putting his philosophy bluntly: “You make it and you pay it back”.
Here is a technology entrepreneur who believes in building businesses and creating wealth, but also argues that successful people have responsibilities to their country and that New Zealand must invest more deliberately in its own productive capacity.
There is also a cultural dimension. Treasury economists Julie Fry and Hayden Glass found three-quarters of New Zealanders considered themselves ambitious and 80% admired ambitious people. Yet fewer than one in five said they would openly share their ambitions, while nearly two-thirds said they would describe their achievements with appropriate humility.
It sounds quintessentially Kiwi: build the company, but don’t boast; make money, but don’t appear too interested in it.
The United States, particularly Silicon Valley, has a more open culture of commercial ambition. Founders are encouraged to think globally, attract capital and accept that failure can be part of building something significant.
New Zealand’s self-effacing culture has virtues. But suspicion of “tall poppies” becomes counterproductive if it turns into suspicion of scale.
New Zealand’s challenge is to help more businesses make the leap from promising local company to global competitor.
That requires capital, skilled workers, research and development, energy and digital infrastructure, and a predictable policy environment. It also requires a tax system that raises revenue fairly without inadvertently penalising the investment needed to grow internationally competitive businesses.
The policy challenge is to distinguish between taxing wealth itself, realised capital gains, inheritance and economic rents. It also means recognising the difference between a founder whose company has appreciated in value and an investor accumulating passive wealth through property.
These are precisely the issues an election should force parties to confront.
More billionaires are not an economic strategy. More globally successful companies are. Equally, taxing billionaires more heavily is not, by itself, an answer to inequality if productivity remains weak and wages fail to rise.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.