{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreia6wsmn4cjzh7b4l4qyml4jdqt35uj5h6oxbogu3leojwupliihwy",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:sl2hrcwo6voaorzsr26d3bo2/app.bsky.feed.post/3mpexw7pwh322"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreic3nkxzth57ae73x7uitftly44aexcvumd7f6b4elnvoalnau4ac4"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 88868
  },
  "description": "10 News Stories They Chose Not to Tell You",
  "path": "/your-daily-ten-10-2026-115/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-28T22:00:23.000Z",
  "site": "https://goodoil.news",
  "tags": [
    "Read More"
  ],
  "textContent": "**This is edition 2026/115 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. Could Hipkins Be the Next Starmer?\n\n_Grant Duncan — The Conversation_\n\n  * 🇬🇧 Keir Starmer won a \"landslide\" 411-seat UK majority in 2024 on barely one-third of the popular vote and turnout of just 59.7% — meaning only about one in five eligible voters backed Labour.\n  * 📉 Within two years Labour’s support collapsed to 20% or lower as voters defected both right (over immigration) and left (over insufficient progressivism), united by dissatisfaction with Starmer himself.\n  * 🥀 Duncan diagnoses a wider crisis of social-democratic parties retreating to \"thin labourism\" — neither post-war social democracy nor Third Way Blairism, but a diluted mix of growth, competition, and cost-of-living tweaks.\n  * 🇳🇿 New Zealand still looks like a two-party contest, but combined support for Labour and National may be at a 30-year low.\n  * 🗳️ Hipkins could return to power in November 2026, but if he does he will face the same structural trap: an electorate fragmenting to the progressive left and the populist right while he competes with Luxon for the centre.\n  * 📉 Hipkins’ preferred-prime-minister ratings have often fallen below 20% and his approval has slipped into negative territory.\n  * ⚠️ Luxon is no breakout figure either — the contest features \"two contestants with weak or declining leadership capital.\"\n  * 🎯 Labour’s proposed capital-gains tax to fund GP visits is cited as the kind of modest tax-and-transfer tweak that signals ideological thinness.\n  * 🔥 Winston Peters is already targeting traditional Labour territory — the West Coast and South Auckland Pacific communities — with anti-mainstream, immigration-sceptical messaging.\n  * 🎯 Takeaway: a Hipkins victory is possible, but the conditions that destroyed Starmer are already visible in New Zealand.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n* * *\n\n## 2. The 2026 Greens Tax Policy: The Good and the Bad\n\n _Natalia Albert — Substack_\n\n  * 💰 The Greens’ 2026 tax policy has three themes and eight clauses, scored by the author as six solid and two questionable.\n  * 🏠 The headline shift: a 2.5% wealth tax now kicks in at **$10 million**, not the previous $2 million threshold, with the family home exempt.\n  * 🧑‍🌾 The author argues the higher threshold is strategic: it spares Waikato dairy farmers, Wellington couples with rentals, and provincial business owners who would have been hit at $2 million.\n  * 📜 A 33% Capital Acquisitions Tax (inheritance/gift tax) applies only above $1 million in lifetime receipts, with family homes and family farms carved out.\n  * 🏢 Company tax returns to 33%, but only for the largest 0.7% of firms — banks, supermarkets, and energy companies.\n  * 💵 A new 45% top income-tax rate applies above $160,000, cutting in $20,000 sooner than the current 39% rate.\n  * ✅ The author praises honest modelling: the Greens assume 28.5% of the super-rich tax will be lost to avoidance, an admission of political maturity.\n  * ❌ The bad: the framing conflates \"the shitty rich-lister with the helipad\" with \"the couple with one rental and the family running a panel-beating shop.\"\n  * ❌ The 45% top rate is described as too sharp a jump; the author suggests 41% or 42% would be more defensible.\n  * 🎯 Takeaway: the Greens have produced their most electorally disciplined tax policy in a decade, but the anti-wealth framing may still alienate the asset-holding middle.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n* * *\n\n## 3. Who Really Wins From Compulsory KiwiSaver?\n\n_Bryce Edwards — The Democracy Project_\n\n  * 🏦 National has proposed auto-enrolment for every newborn with a $1,500 \"Baby Boost\" and contribution increases to 6% each from workers and employers by 2032.\n  * 📊 That would direct a combined 12% of most employees’ pay into KiwiSaver or equivalent retirement schemes by law, in perpetuity.\n  * 📈 A Post poll found 71% public support — before voters had seen the detail.\n  * 🔄 National’s conversion is striking: it ran the 1975 \"Dancing Cossacks\" campaign against compulsory super, opposed Winston Peters’ 1997 compulsory-savings referendum, and spent years chipping away at KiwiSaver.\n  * 🚨 Richard Harman calls the move a \"circuit breaker\"; Chris Trotter detects \"the unmistakable note of panic\" and compares it to David Shearer’s KiwiBuild launch.\n  * 💡 The author argues compulsory KiwiSaver is less about retirement savings than about quietly shifting NZ Super from a universal public promise to an individual private account.\n  * 🗣️ Nicola Willis has hinted a \"subtle combination\" of KiwiSaver and Super will be needed, while industry figures say you don’t need both systems.\n  * ⚠️ Critics warn the real endgame is a future government raising the retirement age or means-testing the pension, using private savings as political cover.\n  * 💸 Fees managers will collect from forced savings are another winner, while low-income workers absorb a compulsory pay cut.\n  * 🎯 Takeaway: the policy has genuine positives, but its most important effect may be on the politics of NZ Super — advanced quietly through a popular savings initiative.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n* * *\n\n## 4. Pride Cometh Before the Fall: The Sporting Backlash\n\n _Ani O’Brien — Thought Crimes_\n\n  * 🏳️‍🌈 Ani O’Brien, who identifies as gay, argues it is time to end Pride campaigns in professional sport because they have shifted from tolerance to compelled political performance.\n  * 🎭 She says modern Pride initiatives have been \"hijacked by the identitarians\" who demand public affirmation rather than peaceful coexistence.\n  * ⚽ Sport historically brings together people who disagree; turning games into \"compulsory political sermons\" erodes that shared space.\n  * 🇮🇷 FIFA designated an Iran vs. Egypt fixture in Seattle as a Pride Match — even though both countries criminalise homosexuality, with Iran still executing gay people.\n  * 🤝 Both football federations objected on cultural, religious, and legal grounds; FIFA rejected the protests, treating the Pride branding as a local initiative.\n  * 🏉 The 2022 Manly Sea Eagles Pride jersey saw seven Pacific-Island players stood down after refusing to wear it; the coach admitted the club had failed to consult.\n  * ⚾ The York Revolution baseball team forfeited an entire game after players refused rainbow-sleeved uniforms rather than find a compromise.\n  * ⚾ San Francisco Giants pitchers wrote Bible verses on Pride caps; MLB warned them for uniform violations while previously allowing Black Lives Matter messaging.\n  * 📉 O’Brien’s core warning: activists are mistaking visibility for acceptance and burning through goodwill by demanding performance rather than respect.\n  * 🎯 Takeaway: the essay argues genuine inclusion looks like coexistence, not coerced branding.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n* * *\n\n## 5. OPPORTUNITY…\n\n _John McLean — John’s Substack_\n\n  * 📈 A 1 News–Verian poll conducted 13–17 June put The Opportunity Party at 4.6%, trending toward the 5% MMP threshold.\n  * 👔 Leader Qiulae Wong got the job after applying through a national recruitment campaign, including a SEEK listing; deputy Daniel Eb calls himself a \"social impact founder in the food & fibre sector.\"\n  * 🕵️ General manager Iain Lees-Galloway is a former Labour MP sacked by Jacinda Ardern in 2020 over an affair with a staffer.\n  * 🗳️ McLean argues Opportunity’s only realistic route to power is a Labour/Greens/Māori Party/Opportunity coalition, since NZ First has ruled out working with Labour.\n  * 🎙️ Wong attacked NZ First and Winston Peters in a 10 June RNZ interview with Guyon Espiner, reportedly asking \"what has he really done for New Zealand.\"\n  * 🌱 The party’s palette is \"teal\": fiscal conservatism + environmental activism + social liberalism.\n  * 📜 It supports a Te Tiriti reinterpretation under which Māori did not cede sovereignty, opposes NZ First’s Definitions of Woman and Man Bill, favours no jail for offenders under 26, and backs unelected citizens’ assemblies.\n  * 💰 A 1.75% annual land tax and ETS changes to tax farmers for animal emissions are part of the platform.\n  * 💵 Les Mills founder Phillip Mills donated $100,000; he reportedly \"hates NZ First\" and wants a Labour-led government. Les Mills received $4.5 million in COVID subsidies from Labour.\n  * 🎯 Takeaway: McLean frames Opportunity as a media-favoured, elitist leftist construct whose coalition arithmetic points left regardless of its centrist branding.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n* * *\n\n## 6. Opportunity Knocks\n\n _Liam Hehir — The Blue Review_\n\n  * 🤼 Hehir uses a professional-wrestling analogy: the recent rise of The Opportunity Party is a \"push\" — the promotion decides to give a wrestler favourable storylines and main-event bookings.\n  * 📰 Evidence of the push: RNZ sit-down with Guyon Espiner, a warm 1News profile by Mava Moayyed, and a long NZ Herald premium piece by Derek Cheng.\n  * 📊 This culminated in \"surprise surge\" stories after a single Verian poll put TOP at 4.6%.\n  * 📉 The author notes TOP was previously stuck in a 1–2% rut despite earlier media relaunches — \"the press can no more conjure enthusiasm from nothing than a wrestling promotion can.\"\n  * 🆕 What may be different this time: electoral attrition and the party acting more like a normal, disciplined political operation rather than a novelty gimmick.\n  * ⚠️ Hehir discloses he would never vote for TOP and opposes its UBI, land-value tax, and devolutionary Treaty stance.\n  * 🧠 His central point: media amplification can put a party on the card, but the crowd still decides whether to cheer.\n  * 🎯 Takeaway: if TOP’s poll rise is real, it is at least partly organic; if it fades, the media push will look like another failed attempt to manufacture momentum.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n* * *\n\n## 7. Luxon’s Silence on Te Tiriti o’ Waitangi Is Undemocratic and Deafening\n\n _William Ludbrook — Brash & Mitchell_\n\n  * 📝 William Ludbrook, great-great-grandson of Treaty translator Archdeacon Henry Williams, argues Prime Minister Luxon is failing to defend Crown sovereignty against expanding iwi influence.\n  * 🗣️ In April 2025 Luxon said he had been talking to iwi leaders for 12 months; Ludbrook counters that the issue is iwi leaders assuming a privileged role in shaping government policy.\n  * 🏛️ The National Iwi Chairs Forum objected to the government’s review of Treaty clauses and complained of insufficient consultation before Cabinet considered reforms.\n  * ⚖️ Ludbrook’s response: the government was elected by all New Zealanders and has a democratic mandate to review legislation; iwi veto power is not democracy.\n  * 📜 He states Henry Williams translated \"sovereignty\" as \"Kawanatanga Katoa\" — Governor for all / Government — and argues Māori ceded sovereignty in 1840.\n  * 🚫 He rejects the view that Māori retained independent sovereignty through tino rangatiratanga, calling modern interpretations deliberate revisionism.\n  * ⚠️ Ludbrook describes co-governance and race-based laws as a \"toxic culture of division\" and \"apartheid, plain and simple.\"\n  * 📉 Past prime ministers from Bolger to Ardern are accused of extending Waitangi Tribunal powers and then \"running away\" from the consequences.\n  * ✅ His remedy: equality before the law, individual rights, and a shared national identity rather than \"racial favouritism\" or \"endless guilt-tripping.\"\n  * 🎯 Takeaway: Ludbrook frames Luxon’s quiet engagement with iwi as a failure to defend one-law-for-all democracy.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n* * *\n\n## 8. TOP's Citizen's Income Policy\n\n _Lindsay Mitchell — Brash & Mitchell_\n\n  * 💰 Lindsay Mitchell argues The Opportunities Party under-costs its proposed Citizen’s Income and overstates administrative savings.\n  * 📊 TOP’s 2024 net CI costing was $15.788 billion; Mitchell’s updated estimate puts the net cost at **$20.438 billion**.\n  * 🧮 Headline cost: $19,400 per adult × 4.16 million adults = $80.7 billion, minus tax clawback and replaced benefits.\n  * ❌ RNZ’s Lisa Owen reportedly described the CI as tax-free; Mitchell says it is not — TOP would tax income up to $50,000 at 28%, clawing much of it back.\n  * 👶 Supplementary supports include Child Support Income payments, sole-parent allowance, disability allowance, superannuitant top-ups, and housing support — all abated from household income between $50,000 and $75,000.\n  * 📉 Mitchell’s audit of supplementary supports produces a running total around **$17.33 billion**, while TOP budgets only $15.614 billion — she is \"dubious.\"\n  * ⚠️ The central contradiction: TOP claims to abolish means-testing and punitive effective marginal tax rates, but abatement **is** means-testing and creates the same work-disincentive problem.\n  * 🏛️ Mitchell argues the policy would still need a large bureaucracy to verify status, track income, and prevent fraud.\n  * 🎯 Takeaway: Mitchell treats TOP’s flagship welfare reform as mathematically optimistic and conceptually inconsistent with its own rhetoric.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n* * *\n\n## 9. Why We Cannot Talk About Climate Change\n\n _Richard Prebble — Brash & Mitchell_\n\n  * 🌡️ Prebble, former Labour MP and ACT leader, says climate policy in New Zealand has become tribal — sensible debate is almost impossible.\n  * 📉 After writing about carbon pricing, he received 90+ responses: only one discussed carbon pricing; the rest either called climate change a hoax or accused him of understating the threat.\n  * 🌍 He argues the question of whether climate change is man-made or natural is largely irrelevant for NZ policy because trading partners accept the Paris framework and NZ cannot walk away.\n  * 🔬 The science has moved on: methane breaks down after about 12 years and the resulting CO₂ is reabsorbed by the grass livestock eat, so stable agricultural methane does not accumulate warming like CO₂.\n  * 🐄 NZ methane emissions are already falling, mainly because sheep numbers have declined, and new feed additives and vaccines could deliver larger cuts.\n  * 💡 Prebble’s opportunity: make NZ the world’s leading centre for methane-reduction research and sell the technology globally.\n  * 🏛️ National, Labour, and the Greens insist NZ must meet Paris exactly as written; Treasury says this could cost billions; ACT wants to renegotiate or leave; NZ First says Paris doesn’t fit the Pacific.\n  * ✅ Prebble’s proposal: take Oxford analysis seriously and argue that reducing agricultural methane could contribute to cooling, which Paris should recognise.\n  * 🎯 Takeaway: Prebble says the science has moved on and it is time the policy did too — but expects the same polarised response.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n* * *\n\n## 10. A Good Bill and a Bad Detour\n\n _A Halfling’s View_\n\n  * 📷 Laura McClure’s member’s bill amends the Crimes Act and Harmful Digital Communications Act to extend the definition of an \"intimate visual recording\" to cover AI-generated or altered sexually explicit material made without consent.\n  * ✅ The author calls it a \"clean, proportionate, conduct-focused fix\" that regulates behaviour, not speech; satire, art, and legitimate generative uses are untouched.\n  * 🎙️ Coming from ACT, a party with no appetite for content regulation, the bill is framed as genuinely about conduct rather than speech control.\n  * 🔊 InternetNZ’s narrower suggestion to also capture audio deepfakes is endorsed as reasonable and technology-neutral.\n  * ⚠️ But InternetNZ also calls for a sweeping new independent digital regulator with \"real-time audit powers,\" \"dynamic compliance,\" and the ability to impose industry standards.\n  * ❌ The author argues that proposal is vague, procedurally improper, and an attempt to win by adjacency what could not be won on the merits.\n  * 🗳️ New Zealand has already rejected similar regulator models twice: the DIA Safer Online Services review was shelved in 2024, and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage media reform direction was reversed.\n  * 🧩 The remit would cover violent extremism, CSAM, misinformation, hate speech, self-harm, and cyberbullying — a sprawling list mixing serious crime with contested lawful speech categories.\n  * 🏛️ The author says a generational decision about state power over online speech needs its own legislation, RIA, consultation, and mandate — not a rider on a deepfake bill.\n  * 🎯 Takeaway: support the deepfake amendment, but reject the regulator detour.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n* * *\n\n## What our members are saying about Ten@10\n\n**Elizabeth**\nThese articles are compulsory reading for me and the perfect addition to the usual list of Goodoil items!\n\n**Lynne**\nAbsolutely brilliant to receive these current and thought provoking articles.\n\n**Jonathan**\nJust wanted to let you know that I’m loving this new 10@10. Much appreciated from someone who chooses to read/watch almost NO mainstream media.\n\n**Murray**\nCam, relish your output as the newspaper in Christchurch is so intent on non news. Thankyou\n\n**Fred**\nThanks for Ten @ Ten, really enjoy reading it.Keep it up. All the best, keep healthy.\n\n**Jocko**\nWonderful info not otherwise available in NZ. More power to your elbow! Thanks.",
  "title": "Your Daily Ten@10 - 2026/115",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-28T22:00:23.249Z"
}