I was watching question time the other day when something struck me. All these Labor politicians – Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, Andrew Leigh, Chris Bowen – they speak with the same language, push the same policies, use the same phrases about “social democracy” and “progressive reform.”
It’s like they all went to the same school.
The Group You’ve Never Heard Of
Quick question: Have you ever heard of the Australian Fabian Society?
If you haven’t, you’re not alone. Most Australians haven’t. But here’s what I noticed: most of our Labor politicians have.
Founded in 1947, the Australian Fabians call themselves a “think tank” that aims to “contribute to progressive political thinking” and “influence the ideas and policies of political parties, especially the Australian Labor Party.”
That’s from their own website. They’re not hiding it.
The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
The original Fabian Society was founded in Britain in 1884. Their first logo? A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Not joking. They literally chose a symbol representing deception.
They later changed it to a turtle – still representing their core strategy: slow, gradual change. As they put it: “For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently when warring against Hannibal… but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain.”
The Roman general Fabius won by avoiding direct confrontation. Instead, he wore down his enemy slowly, through persistence and attrition.
Sound familiar?
Who’s Who in the Fabian Zoo
Here’s where it gets interesting. Let me show you some names from the Australian Fabian Society’s own records:
Past Labor Prime Ministers who were Fabians:
- John Curtin
- Arthur Calwell
- Gough Whitlam (was their patron)
- Bob Hawke
- Paul Keating
- Julia Gillard
Current Labor Politicians who are members:
- Penny Wong (regularly speaks at their events)
- Tanya Plibersek
- Andrew Leigh (writes for them)
- Chris Bowen
- Wayne Swan
- Bill Shorten
- Stephen Jones
- Jenny McAllister
- Julie Collins
- Tim Watts
That’s not a complete list. That’s just what I found in an hour of searching.
Notice a pattern? These aren’t random backbenchers. These are the people who hold the senior positions in the Labor Party. The people who write policy, give speeches, make decisions.
What Do They Actually Want?
Here’s where I had to dig into their own documents, because they’re surprisingly honest about their goals.
From the Australian Labor Party’s current constitution:
“The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation.”
“Democratic socialisation.” That’s a fancy way of saying government control of the economy.
The Fabians describe their mission as advancing “social democracy” through “gradual influence and patiently promoting socialist ideals to intellectual circles and groups with power.”
Not revolution. Evolution. Change the system slowly, from the inside, until people wake up one day and find themselves living under something completely different than what they voted for.
The Training Ground
So how does this work in practice?
The Fabians run education programs, publish research, host forums where politicians speak to their members. They’re creating a network of like-minded people who share the same worldview, the same language, the same goals.
Andrew Leigh, the Labor MP, wrote in a Fabian publication: “I joined the Labor Party in 1991, at the age of 18, because I wanted to be part of a serious movement for reform.” He’s been a party member for over 30 years and writes regularly for Fabian publications.
Penny Wong has given speeches to Fabian Society events in Queensland. In one speech, she talked about using “market-based solutions” to drive the innovations that will “underpin the future of Australian industry.” Classic Fabian strategy: use capitalist tools to achieve socialist ends.
Think about it: if you’re a young, ambitious person who wants to get ahead in the Labor Party, where do you go to network, to learn, to make connections? Places like the Fabian Society.
Over time, the people who rise to leadership positions are the ones who’ve been through these networks, who speak the language, who understand the long-term strategy.
Why Don’t We Learn About This?
Here’s what strikes me: this isn’t secret. It’s all publicly available information. The Fabian Society has websites, publishes magazines, hosts events. Politicians openly speak at their functions.
But somehow, most Australians have never heard of them.
When’s the last time you saw a news story that mentioned “Fabian Society member Tanya Plibersek said today…”? Or “Andrew Leigh, who regularly writes for Fabian publications, announced…”?
The connections are there. The influence is obvious. But it’s rarely mentioned.
Why not?
Maybe because once you understand that many of our political leaders belong to an organization that openly advocates for “democratic socialism” and uses gradualist tactics to achieve it, you might start viewing their policies differently.
The Long Game
Here’s what I think is actually happening:
The Fabian Society isn’t trying to win elections by promising socialism. Australians would reject that. Instead, they’re playing a much longer game.
Step 1: Get your people into positions of influence within the Labor Party Step 2: When Labor wins government, implement policies that gradually move the system toward their goals Step 3: Frame these policies as “practical solutions” or “social justice” rather than socialist programs
Step 4: Wait for the next opportunity to move further
Each Labor government pushes things a little further left than the previous one. Not enough to cause alarm, just enough to shift the baseline. What seemed radical 20 years ago becomes the new normal.
That’s not conspiracy – that’s strategy. And it’s working.
Recent Examples
Look at some recent Labor policies through this lens:
National Disability Insurance Scheme: Sounds compassionate, right? But it’s also a massive expansion of government control over a sector of the economy.
Superannuation: Compulsory retirement savings managed through the financial system. Your money, but you can’t access it for 30+ years, and the government controls how it’s invested.
Carbon Pricing: Using market mechanisms to fundamentally restructure the economy and energy sector.
Voice to Parliament: Constitutional change that embeds different treatment based on race – exactly the kind of “social justice” framework Fabians support.
I’m not saying these are necessarily bad policies. But notice how they’re all presented as practical solutions to specific problems, while gradually expanding government reach into areas that were previously private or voluntary.
Classic Fabian strategy: frame socialist policies as common-sense solutions.
What I Noticed About The Other Side
Fair question. Do the Liberals have equivalent organizations?
Oh mate, do they ever.
Institute of Public Affairs (IPA):
Founded in 1943 by Melbourne businessmen specifically to oppose the Labor Party and help establish the Liberal Party. From their own history.
Who funds them? Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting paid them $2.3 million in 2016 and $2.2 million in 2017. That’s one-third to half of their total revenue. Australia’s richest person, funding the think tank that writes Liberal Party policy.
And it gets better: John Howard admitted the IPA “contributes very strongly to the intellectual debate and that has an impact on what attitude the Liberal Party takes.” They’re not even hiding it.
Current Liberal MPs who are IPA members or have direct connections. Several hold seats in state parliaments. The IPA literally has its people in parliament, just like the Fabians.
Centre for Independent Studies (CIS): Same deal. Strong links with Coalition parties. Their alumni become Liberal MPs and candidates.
Menzies Research Centre: Named after former PM Robert Menzies, directly funded by and associated with the Liberal Party.
So yes, the Liberals absolutely have their own version. Mining money and big business funding think tanks that push “free market” policies that benefit… mining companies and big business.
The Club You’re Not In
Here’s where it got really interesting for me.
January 2025: Gina Rinehart and Pauline Hanson were spotted having lunch together in Thailand. Just two mates on holiday, right?
Except a month earlier, December 2024: Pauline Hanson attended an exclusive National Mining Day gala. Hundreds of guests flown on chartered flights to Santos’s gas field. Hanson listened to speeches from Hancock Prospecting CEOs. Gina Rinehart gave the keynote speech praising Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” approach. Hanson was filmed dancing on the dance floor after Guy Sebastian performed.
Wait. Pauline Hanson? The “anti-establishment” One Nation leader? Holidaying with Australia’s richest mining billionaire? Dancing at exclusive corporate galas?
Let me show you the pattern I’m seeing:
Left side:
- Labor politicians
- Fabian Society membership
- “Democratic socialism” language
- Gradual expansion of government control
- Serves bureaucratic/technocratic elite
Right side:
- Liberal/One Nation politicians
- IPA/Mining money
- “Free markets” language
- Policies that benefit mining/banking corporations
- Serves corporate/billionaire elite
Both sides:
- Funded by people we’ll never meet
- Attend events we’ll never be invited to
- Make decisions that affect us, not them
- Tell us we have a choice
- Keep us arguing left vs right while they’re all at the same galas
It’s a big club. And you’re not in it.
Hollywood For Ugly People
Someone once said politics is Hollywood for ugly people. I’d add: it’s theater for the rest of us.
Watch question time. Labor vs Liberal, shouting at each other, fierce opposition, fundamental differences. Then they all go to the same functions, funded by the same corporate sponsors, staying at the same hotels, sending their kids to the same private schools.
The “sides” are the performance. The club is real.
Think about it:
- Fabians want gradual socialist transformation through government expansion
- IPA wants “free market” policies that consolidate corporate power
- One expands government control, the other expands corporate control
- Either way, you get less freedom and they get more power
- And they’re all at Gina Rinehart’s mining gala together
The left-right divide keeps us fighting each other while both sides serve the same elite interests. Just different flavors of control.
Labor: “We’ll save you with government programs!”
Liberal: “We’ll save you with free markets!”
One Nation: “We’re anti-establishment!” (while literally on holiday with the establishment)
None of them are coming to save you. That’s the point. The illusion of choice maintains hope that there’s a savior coming. There isn’t.
They’re not on different sides. They’re playing different roles in the same production.
What Both Sides Actually Do
Here’s what I’ve noticed about how this works in practice:
When Labor’s in power:
- Expands government programs
- Increases regulations
- Creates new bureaucracies
- Raises taxes (for normal people)
- Makes us more dependent on government
When Liberals are in power:
- Privatizes what Labor built (selling to corporate mates)
- Deregulates industries (that benefit big business)
- Cuts services (while maintaining corporate subsidies)
- Keeps us more dependent on corporations
The result:
- Government gets bigger
- Corporations get richer
- Your freedom gets smaller
- The club gets stronger
It’s not left vs right. It’s top vs bottom. And we’re not at the top.
The Rules Are Different For Them
Here’s another thing I noticed.
Tanya Plibersek – Fabian Society member, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, lectures us constantly about social justice, equality, doing the right thing.
Her husband? Michael Coutts-Trotter. Convicted in 1986 for conspiracy to import and distribute heroin into Australia. Got a nine-year sentence. Served nearly three years.
Now here’s where it gets interesting.
Coutts-Trotter went on to become Director-General of NSW Department of Education. Then Director-General of Finance. Then Secretary of Justice. Now he’s Secretary of NSW Treasury. One of the most powerful public servants in the state.
When he was appointed to Education, the Teachers Federation pointed out that any teacher with his criminal conviction for a serious drug offence would be unable to continue teaching and working with children.
But if you’re married to a Fabian Society Labor politician? Different rules.
I’m not saying people don’t deserve second chances. Rehabilitation is real. Good on him for turning his life around.
But notice the pattern:
Regular Australian with drug conviction:
- Can’t teach
- Can’t work with children
- Travel restrictions
- Employment difficulties
- Stigma for life
Connected to Labor politician:
- Head of Education Department
- Secretary of Justice
- Secretary of Treasury
- One of the most powerful positions in state government
See how that works?
The same politicians who lecture us about equality and fairness operate under completely different rules. The same people who want more government control, more regulations, more compliance from us – they’re exempt.
Plibersek even gave a speech in Parliament in 2015 about her husband’s conviction, talking about redemption and second chances. Fair enough. But she was arguing against the death penalty for the Bali Nine drug smugglers while her husband – convicted of importing heroin from Thailand – was running the NSW Justice Department.
You can’t make this stuff up.
And this is the same Tanya Plibersek who’s a proud Fabian Society member, regularly speaking at their events about “progressive values” and “social democracy.”
Progressive values like: rules for thee but not for me?
The Real Pattern
Once you see this, you can’t unsee it.
The club has:
- Different laws
- Different consequences
- Different opportunities
- Different futures
For them:
- Drug conviction? High-level government position
- Failed policies? Promoted
- Corruption exposed? Quietly moved sideways
- Break the rules? Second chances
For you:
- Minor offense? Permanent record
- Speak up? Lose your job
- Question authority? Labeled conspiracy theorist
- Break the rules? Full weight of the system
And they have the audacity to tell us we’re all equal. That we live in a democracy. That the rules apply to everyone.
Fabian Society members talk about “social justice” while their partners get government positions that would be impossible for regular Australians with the same convictions.
IPA-connected politicians talk about “free markets” while accepting millions from mining billionaires who want government contracts and regulatory favors.
One Nation talks about being “anti-establishment” while literally dancing at Gina Rinehart’s corporate galas.
It’s not left vs right.
It’s not Labor vs Liberal.
It’s the club vs everyone else.
And the rules? They’re just for us.
Every “solution” from either side requires you to:
- Give up more freedom
- Accept more surveillance
- Trust more experts
- Comply with more rules
- Pay more money
- Have less say
Whether it’s Labor’s CBDC or Liberal’s privatization, Fabian’s gradualism or IPA’s free markets, it all ends the same way: they have more control, you have less.
The Fabians have their wolf in sheep’s clothing logo. Maybe both sides should just use a theater mask. Because that’s what it is – performance.
And while we’re arguing about whether the wolf or the fox will guard the henhouse, they’re both having lunch together in Thailand.
The International Connection
The Australian Fabians are part of an international network. The original Fabian Society in Britain founded the London School of Economics in 1895 and heavily influenced the creation of the British Labour Party.
Modern British Labour leaders like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Robin Cook were all Fabian Society members. Same playbook, different country.
New Zealand has their own Fabian Society. So do other Commonwealth countries. It’s a coordinated international movement using the same strategies everywhere.
When you see similar policies appearing across multiple countries at similar times – carbon pricing, digital identity systems, expanded government powers – maybe it’s not coincidence. Maybe it’s coordination.
Make Of It What You Will
So what am I saying exactly?
I’m saying both major parties – and the “alternatives” like One Nation – are connected to networks most Australians don’t know about. Networks funded by people whose interests don’t align with ours.
Labor’s connected to the Fabians, pushing gradual socialism and government expansion.
Liberals are connected to the IPA, pushing policies that benefit mining billionaires and big business.
One Nation pretends to be anti-establishment while literally holidaying with the establishment.
And we’re told to pick a side, as if it matters.
Maybe you’re okay with this. Maybe you think one side really is better than the other. That’s fine.
But shouldn’t we at least know who’s actually pulling the strings? Shouldn’t we understand that the “choice” we’re given is between different versions of elite control?
When Penny Wong talks about “progressive reform,” she’s a Fabian Society member working toward democratic socialism.
When Liberal MPs talk about “free markets,” they’re often IPA connected, pushing policies written by think tanks funded by Gina Rinehart.
When Pauline Hanson rails against elites, she’s literally at their galas.
It’s not conspiracy. It’s just… how it actually works. And most of us have no idea.
The Questions That Remain
Here’s what I’m left wondering:
Why isn’t this common knowledge? Why don’t journalists mention these connections when reporting on Labor policies?
How many other organizations like this exist that most of us don’t know about?
When politicians talk about “evidence-based policy,” whose research are they using? The Fabians publish plenty of reports that get cited in parliamentary debates.
And most importantly: if gradualist socialist transformation is the goal, where does it end? What does Australia look like when they achieve what they’re working toward?
I’m Just Noticing
Look, maybe I’m wrong about all this. Maybe the Fabians are just harmless policy wonks. Maybe the IPA just wants free markets. Maybe Gina and Pauline were just having a coincidental holiday. Maybe all these connections mean nothing.
But once you see the pattern – the same networks, the same money, the same people at the same events, all while telling us we have a choice between fundamentally different options – it’s hard to unsee it.
Next time you watch question time and see them yelling at each other, just remember: they might be at the same mining gala next month.
Next time someone tells you to vote for the “lesser evil,” ask yourself: lesser for who?
Next time a politician promises to save you – whether through government programs or free markets – ask yourself: when has that ever actually worked out for regular people?
There’s a movie called Jones Plantation that’s worth watching. You can get it here: https://jonesplantationfilm.com/film/
It’s based on Larkin Rose’s writings about what politics really is. Not left vs right. Not democracy vs tyranny. Just different methods of control, all requiring your consent, all promising salvation, none delivering it.
Politics isn’t about serving you. It’s about serving the club.
And we’re not in it.
Once you start noticing, you can’t stop.
Next: So if voting won’t save us, what do we actually do about it?
