Why did Christopher Pearson and Matt Price write the same column in Saturday’s Weekend Australian?

Matt Price (page 20):

The answer to the most pressing question in politics this past week –
how did a bloke who loathed his own party and detested the media get a
shot at running for the prime ministership? – isn’t contained in Mark
Latham’s book.

It’s buried in a single sentence of the speech Julia Gillard delivered last week…

… “But almost more than this, Labor put its faith in Latham because
the caucus wanted to register its protest about the corrosion of its
internal culture.” In other words, when Labor MPs were required to
select an alternative prime minister less than a year before an
election, many focused less on suitability than revenge.

Christopher Pearson (page 30):

Julia Gillard, another contender for the Labor leadership,
was downright delusional on the subject on September 16. “Labor put its
faith in Mark Latham because of his thoughtful insights into the issues
[that] confront this nation and because of the power of his advocacy.
Mark was trusted by Labor as a thinker, as a formidable
parliamentarian, as a moving advocate of Labor’s great ideals.

“But almost more than all this, Labor put its faith in Mark
Latham because the caucus wanted to register its protest [against] the
corrosion of its internal culture. In electing Mark, Labor caucus said
to the world and to itself that it wanted to change for the better. And
I believe it has.”

There it is, in black and white.

Just
another case of great minds thinking alike? Or two columnists repeating
the exact same lines on Latham and Gillard currently doing the rounds
in the Parliament house echo chamber?

Perhaps in future they could save us all a bit of time and just file under a joint by-line.