The film is quite depressing in that the people of the town in the movie are living in almost third world conditions. 8 kids having to support themselves in houses that are crumbling. Is this still a problem in NZ which is supposedly a first world country?
I live a smallish town in New Zealand, and have been in the country for about 12 years now. To answer your question, we need to investigate several factors. Forgive me if I project too many subjective political interpretations, but here it goes:
Firstly, in every country, there will be the poor and rich. East coast (for example Waihau Bay where the movie was based in) is quite away from any sizable town/cities, and compounding to the factor, the story was based on a Maori community in the early 80s.
Not being Maori myself and not being an expert in NZ history, I can neither say that there was oppression to the scale of many other countries, but certainly there were still many social problems, and Maori people were often marginalised to the bottom of the social ladder if not fallen through the crack the system.
That being said, even non-Maori NZ audiences can empathise with the movie because NZ itself by the 80s were just coming out of being UK's dedicated agricultural provider. Even till this day, NZ can be considered pretty underdeveloped in many things (e.g. our main high way SH1 is mostly a 2-lane highway), and from what I gathered from older Kiwis, that's not far from what general rural life was like at the time (perhaps with a bit more social cohesion). Thus in the national psyche, the transition from the stable but boring small town lifestyle to the more exciting yet dangerous outside world life is still an important subject (See also the movie "Came a Hot Friday").
Of course, part of the narration was suppose to be a bit shocking. It's something that everyone's heard of (parents abandoning their kids for grandparents to bring up), but not necessarily having to see it themselves.
Strangely, even though NZ is considered as a First World country, it hasn't really moved far in terms of luxury. Sure, some people can afford in sports cars and yachts, and some basic living standards have improved, but generally not much has changed.
I believe what has changed is the world's attitude. Instead of somewhat poorly insulated houses (still generally are), we see beautiful coastlines. Instead of tiny 2-lane roads, we see unspoilt forests with no predators everywhere.
Also, crayfish became an item you wish you can afford. Oh the romanticism.
Kia ora, I'm a Pakeha (white) kiwi, born and bred. I read zephirum's reply with interest.
Most of your answer was correct, however, not being 'native' to our land, I feel you have missed a point. NZ'ers pride themselves on their no. 8 wire mentality. That is our ability through necessity of isolation and pioneering spirit, to create things Macgyver like out of what we have lying around. This is our national psyche. The way the children lived in the film was very normal for small towns out in the 'wops', where people did for themselves. Our identity is built around the idea of independence and small community spirit. This is particularly prominent in small, poorer areas, where both pakeha and Maori alike live/d.
I'd also like to address your point about parents abandoning their kids for grandparents to bring up. In fact this is neither shocking or uncommon. Maori believe (rightly, in my opinion) that a community raises a child and as such, it was quite common and normal (although less so now) for grandparents, who are wise and patient, to care for their mokopuna. I grew up in the 80's in a small town not unlike the one in the movie and it really brought back many memories.
I do agree with all other points, read with interest.
Most Maori are poor. That has nothing to do with oppression, marginalisation or racism. It is due to them being generally poorly educated and earning low incomes. That is due entirely to them being either too stupid or too tribalised to adjust well to modern society and education.
Poverty is too strong a word - There are always poor people, no matter what country you go to. It's set in a small town, and this is fairly common din the poorer towns, or parts of those towns. But NZ as a whole, you won't have a problem. I bet if you visited NZ, you probably will never see any of those sorts of areas - Certainly not anywhere where's particularly bad. But like mentioned, it's just like any other country - There are always poor areas.
A *country* being "first world" doesn't mean much in terms of local poverty in certain areas in the country.
e.g. When the 2005 Human Development Report started analysing the USA by local areas, look into aspects like comparisons between insured/uninsured (health) households, etc., it turned out that there are many communities in the USA that have a lower HDI than parts of Africa. (This even shows up in the averages - e.g. the total child mortality rate in the US is close to that in Malaysia.) If You went out of New Orleans by car before Katrina, You passed through several corrugated board and tent townships with people cooking on open fires that wouldn't have been out of place in apartheid South Africa.
What really matters is the distribution of income, the distribution of investment projects, and the social support network, not the total economic production. In fact, NZ is by now quite good in these respects.
Also - NZ have money invested in certain things, and not in others, and it is not actually *that* rich a country.
In the mid-1980's, when this movie takes places, the government of New Zealand started a major economic restructuring, moving a primarily agrarian economy exporting to Britain toward a more industrialised, free market economy. The transition wasn't painless at the time, as no economic transition tends to be. Also now, NZ is well off, but it still has only about 2/3 of per capita GDP of Australia/USA/Western European countries - in terms of GDP it is more comparable to recent transition countries like the Czech Republic. It is also quite vulnerable to crises in Asia, that's where most of their trade goes - and unlike Australia, most of the trade is not natural resources.
Nice. Where do you get off talking to people in that way? The OP wasn't 'bringing down' NZ, he was asking a straightforward question. You should learn how to behave yourself instead of cursing people for imaginary reasons.
The house in this movie was crumbling down around them in this film but I saw that as taiki reiterating the lack of a father figure in the family to do the repairs?
To put another view on it, I think it comes down to the definition of poverty itself. I'm Maori myself, and it's very common, even these days for children to be raised by their grandparents, and as that other NZer said, children are considered a collective responsibility to raise as we all affect their lives somehow. Partially due to this collective mentality and sometimes partly to do with lack of funds, it's not uncommon for many maori to live under the same roof. Culturally this has happened for hundreds of years, just think about maraes where everyone works together.
Also you'd have to keep in mind that during the 80s maori were coming out from the woodworks of oppression so the state of their poverty in this film may be due to residual effects of this.
From talking to a lot of ex-pat Kiwis in Sydney quality of life in NZ growing up is very good. Food, health, education and even shelter isn't a problem even if New Zealanders are a bit behind in luxuries than most Most people leave NZ to go to Australia/UK/USA as adults for increased opportunity rather than poverty or hardship from their childhood.
Sure, the kid in this film was poor and but it was not like he was malnourished and he went to school.
Maoris fair pretty well to other indigenous peoples in Australia, USA and Canada.
Having spent a year in NZ, that country is so much better off for not having a lot of the crap we have in North America. It was dreadful coming back to TOO much when I had exactly what I needed in NZ.....except Root Beer. I missed that. haha