Between the mid–1960s and the mid–1980s, the New Zealand economy and the country’s Samoan population both grew rapidly. Kinship was changing. Whereas formerly it had been primarily a matrix within which goods, information and services were exchanged informally and routinely, it was becoming the basis for the organisation of larger, more complex traditional events and for the celebration of new events. Several factors lay behind this transformation.

First, migrants who attended ceremonies in Samoa began to acquire the necessary cultural knowledge, skills and confidence to organise and manage them. Those returning from events in Samoa brought with them the fine mats given in recognition of their service to their families, which created a growing supply of a crucial element of the ceremonies.^[7] Second, as a consequence of continuing migration, expatriate āiga were growing and the critical masses necessary to fund and manage major celebrations were developing in New Zealand. These later migrants included chiefs^[8] with the necessary experience to manage life crises and migrants with the knowledge and desire to sponsor the events. Third, increasing familiarity with air travel led more older people to travel to events in New Zealand. Indeed, many older Samoans visited expatriate children and grandchildren during the summer and returned to Samoa at the onset of winter. Their presence meant more events could be held in New Zealand. Finally, Samoan church building, which began in the late 1960s and continues in the present, resulted in the creation of Samoan-owned and controlled buildings in centres of Samoan population concentration and provided venues for Samoan activities. This combination of factors transformed the organisation of migrant kinship over the next two decades.

The same principles were used to encourage expatriate members to participate in these events as in Samoa. These included appeals to their sense of pride in and responsibility to their āiga, and pointing to the indirect benefits of increasing the group’s sociopolitical status in both New Zealand and Samoa. The same strategies were used to plan and manage the events. Leaders of the sub-lineages established the resource requirements of gatherings. The āiga was, typically, divided into traditional sub-sections, which were assigned responsibility for labour and resources. Leaders of each sub-section then became responsible for mobilising its resources for the occasion.

Extended kinship provided an ideal vehicle for organising and funding events that were beyond the capacity of individual households. Participation, now effectively voluntary,^[9] was underpinned by the same principles as it had been in Samoa: kinship conferred on one the obligation to give to kin who made legitimate requests and the right to expect that at some future time the goods and services given to kin would be returned. It also maintained a level of residual indebtedness within an āiga which bound members to one another over time.

The use of kin-based organisation to replicate these events had unanticipated social consequences. It periodically reaffirmed the significance and potential benefits of membership of extended kin groups. Participation in the events renewed bonds between āiga members who did not routinely meet and extended individuals’ social networks. The celebration of these events, typically reserved for those with records of unstinting service to the āiga, reminded members of the benefits of active participation in its affairs. Effectively-managed events won kin groups sociopolitical prestige within the migrant community and in Samoa, and all benefited by association. Indeed, for the reproduction of extended kinship and kin-based social organisation, the events’ latent functions were as important as their manifest ones.

In this period, these events were controlled by matai who followed protocols with which they were familiar and in both scale and form the events were largely replications of such events in Samoa. The complementary requirements of these events, cultural competences from the home community and labour and resources from the migrant community, underpinned transnationalism. But several factors were about to change this forever.