{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiehotr24w4h7vwv33wufq72ngjtdx5dlzib2yta4ypdwihqapggwa",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:sl2hrcwo6voaorzsr26d3bo2/app.bsky.feed.post/3moten3sc3qi2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreigtu4teufpt4gc6hsz425nzdehlfqv3l7m4rfuiq3lijdvoolqabu"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 1975915
  },
  "description": "10 News Stories They Chose Not to Tell You",
  "path": "/your-daily-ten-10-2026-110/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-21T22:00:06.000Z",
  "site": "https://goodoil.news",
  "tags": [
    "Read More",
    "Subscribe now"
  ],
  "textContent": "**This is edition 2026/110 of the _Ten@10_ newsletter.**\n\nHi all,\n\nThis is the Ten@10, where I collate and summarise ten news items you generally won't see in the mainstream media.\n\nEnjoy!\n\n* * *\n\n## 1. What’s wrong with the public service?\n\n_Bryce Edwards_\n\n  * 😠 Erica Stanford publicly expressed unusual fury at officials over Immigration New Zealand’s biometric project, saying she no longer trusts their advice and describing it as a “trifecta of terrible things.”\n  * 💻 The Biometric Capability Update (2018–2025) spent roughly $31–$40 million over seven years, cycled through multiple managers, and ultimately delivered no usable replacement system, leaving outdated 2012-era tech in place.\n  * 📉 While large public IT failures are not uncommon in New Zealand (e.g., INCIS, Novopay), this case is framed as more than just waste due to deeper governance and accountability breakdowns.\n  * 🧾 A central allegation is systemic misleading of ministers, including contradictory briefings where internal warnings about project failure were replaced with overly optimistic assurances to the minister.\n  * 🧑‍💼 The review also found staff who raised concerns were removed from the project, with whistleblowers describing a culture where questioning leadership could end careers.\n  * 🧮 Officials allegedly manipulated project structuring and costs to stay under the $35 million Cabinet approval threshold, effectively bypassing higher-level oversight requirements.\n  * 🧱 An independent review described ministerial reporting as inconsistent and misleading, with attempts to deflect blame onto junior staff when discrepancies were uncovered.\n  * ⚖️ Public Service Commissioner Brian Roche called the situation a “complete lack of integrity” but suggested it may be an “aberration,” a claim others question given similar concerns raised across agencies and years.\n  * 🏛️ Commentary suggests the problem is institutional rather than partisan, with multiple ministers across different governments reportedly being managed rather than properly informed by officials.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n### This post is for subscribers only\n\nBecome a member to get access to all content\n\nSubscribe now",
  "title": "Your Daily Ten@10 - 2026/110",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-21T22:00:05.911Z"
}