In the blue corner, we have Senator Jacinta Price who it is blindingly obvious has a heart of gold with a life mission of ending chronic Aboriginal poverty. Price is opposed to the Voice as she believes it’d be an empty gesture and an unhelpful distraction from efforts to improve real world conditions in remote communities.

In the red bandana corner, we have author and columnist Peter FitzSimons who is an energetic crusader for multiple progressive causes. This includes the Voice as he believes it will prevent laws being passed that have a negative impact on Aboriginals.

FitzSimons writes a column for the Nine Newspapers and often uses that space for a Q&A style interview with a prominent figure. Last weekend he interviewed Price.

It wasn’t a warm interview but I was pleased with what I read on Saturday morning. FitzSimons disagreed with Price on everything and his tone in print ranges from testy to respectful but she was given plenty of space to make her case. 

On Sunday, Price posted on Facebook claims that during the hour-long phone interview FitzSimons was ‘aggressive, condescending and rude’.

She wrote:

‘I don’t know if I’d do another interview with the bloke again. He accused me of giving racists a voice but that wasn’t printed. It was like talking to a brick wall. I’m not a wilting violet but he’s a very aggressive bloke, his interview style is very bloody aggressive.’

She later told The Australian:

‘I was really taken aback and I was exhausted by the energy it took having to defend myself. I was made to feel as though what I was trying to do is wrong and my voice is not as legitimate as those who purport to suffer from 250 years of colonisation.’

The Australian contacted FitzSimons on Sunday evening for comment. He is reported to have said Price’s post was, ‘Complete and utter nonsense. This is not remotely a matter of interpretation. Friendly interview, nice text exchange at its conclusion. Every single word is recorded as I told her.’

Tuesday’s Australian reported on Sunday evening Price received multiple text messages from FitzSimons. He wasn’t happy claiming, ‘This is a serious matter and you have defamed me. Retract every word. I invite you to withdraw quickly. I repeat, every word recorded!’

Price said she felt intimated by the barrage of texts and concluded the exchange by saying, ‘Please stop bullying me. I don’t ever want to communicate with you again.’

By this stage, Price had deleted the Facebook post … which is understandable after what sounded like thinly veiled legal threats from a wealthy individual. She has since told media it was deleted out of fear of legal action. The Australian claims they were also subjected to legal threats by FitzSimons.

A central part of FitzSimons’ defence is that the interview is on tape. Taping an interview is a common practice and Price was informed of this in advance.

The public disclosure of the existence of a tape however poses an obvious question, why not settle this and publicly release the tape? It is odd to claim innocence on the grounds a tape exists but then not release the tape.

Price has since been asked if she would consent to the tape being released and responded, ‘I’d be very happy with that. I’d be quite happy for the public to listen to that interview themselves.’

On Wednesday evening the Sydney Morning Herald editor Bevan Shield posted on Twitter:

‘I’ve listened to audio of the full interview between Peter FitzSimons and Senator Price. There was no yelling and no shouting from either participant. This was an interesting interview in which the senator’s positions and views were tested. The Australian really needs to move on.’

In a second tweet, Shields reminds us Price had deleted the Facebook post but ignored Price’s statement this was in response to legal threats. Is Mr Shields okay with claims an Aboriginal women was silenced via legal threats?

Good to know the tape hasn’t been lost but what is the impediment to its release? The possessor of a taped private conversation is forbidden from releasing it publicly unless the other participant consents. Price has publicly and somewhat enthusiastically consented.

FitzSimons posts around 1,100 tweets a month but has not commented on this issue (bar retweeting his editor) despite his name trending on Twitter for days. He had a column in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday – it was about a football stadium in Penrith.

Let’s imagine a parallel universe where the columnist was not FitzSimons, but Andrew Bolt and the interviewee was not Senator Jacinta Price but Senator Lidia Thorpe.

Had Thorpe a day later posted on Facebook that Bolt was ‘aggressive, condescending and rude’ I admit I would have been sympathetic to Bolt and assumed Thorpe’s complaint was untrue and politically motivated.

I would however be sympathetic to Thorpe if I were made aware of these four points (1) Bolt has possession of an hour-long recording of the interview, (2) Bolt had used the tape’s mere existence as part of his defence (3) Thorpe had publicly supported its release but (4) Bolt had clammed up about why he would or would not release the tape.

If the public were to listen to the tape there is a spectrum of outcomes. If FitzSimons was as polite as claimed and Price has cried wolf, then it would not be the end of her political career, but it would be a blow. It could also be the case that while FitzSimons was somewhat improper his behaviour falls short of what is alleged and this matter would end in a draw. It may also be possible that Price’s account is accurate. That would pose an acute problem for someone like Fitzsimons who is well-known for being at the forefront of criticising those who fall short of the woke orthodoxy.

Releasing the tape will clear this up. It is entirely up to Fitzsimons but a refusal to do so leaves a bad smell. If that is how things unfold some will be inclined to assume FitzSimons has calculated ‘not releasing the tape comes with pain but less pain than releasing it’.

Release the tape, the whole tape and nothing but the tape.