We can neither confirm nor deny such a statement.
Risks, reliability and predictability
Governments and large enterprise are very risk adverse and tend to prefer proven technology, that is well understood. Older technologies have more often a proven track of success and are more predictable (e.g. not a technology that will vanish before the investments are amortized).
In governmental organization there is rarely a single person who decides. Administrations tend to follow a hierarchical path for decision making, or to appoint committees. In any case, the broader a technology is known (so age will play a role), the easier it will be accepted by all the stakeholders.
Governments and large enterprises prefer also broadly known technologies:
- many experts on the market means continuity of service. Large organizations don't like to be too dependent on a scarce number of experts and limited training offer -- a typical situation for newer techs
- a broad population also favors competition between the market players : lower prices and cost efficiency are key here ("saving taxpayer's money").
Ironically, sometimes newer technology could help making disruptive progress on the costs, but it'll take some time to be noticed and acknowledged.
Governments and large companies can afford to get advise from independent consultants, and to spend money on studies to optimize investments:
- In their career, consultants start junior, then get consultant, and only then, after 5 to 7 years are they in a seniority that would allow them to lead large studies for very demanding customers.
- As all of us, they are subject to a cognitive bias, and tend to favor technologies they know best. So that they'll end up advising more mature technologies.
- Of course, consulting companies try to use objective methods, train their staff against bias. Nevertheless, probability and psychology will still favor older technologies.
Governments are in addition subject to intense lobbying. The companies that are able to invest in such activity, are rarely start-ups who just discovered the latest tech and are more busy with finding funding and ensure growth to make their technology known.
All these (as well as other) factors contribute together, to make older technology seem more attractive to such large organizations. And hence the observed behavior that you question implies.
I don't think it's intentional, and I would be surprised if there's any official statement about using only 10 years old technology !! It's more a kind of "emergent"/indirect behavior, resulting from several beliefs, expectations and managerial practice, that all push in the same direction.