Editorial: Sir Ed would welcome truce over papers

Three parties had an interest in the resolution of a dispute over Sir Edmund Hillary's archive: the Auckland Museum to which he entrusted its ownership, his children, Peter and Sarah Hillary, to whom he bequeathed exclusive publication rights for 20 years, and the public at large, whose interests are less clearly defined.

The Prime Minister, whose intervention has brought the museum and the Hillarys to an agreement, says it is one that "respects the wishes of Sir Ed and his enormous reputation". The public interest, as John Key saw it, was to ensure that the mana of the nation's greatest figure was preserved. Few would argue with that but many might question the implication that Sir Edmund's reputation was at risk from the row.

He wanted his papers preserved in a public institution. He also wanted to leave his children in control of their publication for 20 years after his death. Both intentions were perfectly natural and respectable and if they were somewhat contradictory any conflict could be resolved, he would think, by good will on both sides. It is no reflection on Sir Ed that the museum could not come to an agreement with his family and was prepared to seek a ruling from a court.

The museum also claimed to be acting for a public interest in unfettered access to the collection, and a public interest in the law governing bequests of this nature. Its joint statement with the Hillarys describes their agreement as "good for the reputation of institutional collections" and one that will "allow the museum to provide access to New Zealanders and to researchers worldwide".

Access and research, of course, may be pointless unless publication is permitted. Any requests to publish material from the archive will be referred to the Hillarys under the terms of the agreement. The museum will not publish the documents in any form for 20 years without their permission, though it may put the material on display (including online) after notifying the the family.

It will not display, without the Hillarys' permission, any document classified as restricted, which is reasonably common in these collections. The family should be able to restrict access to material it would prefer to keep private. That was its expressed concern when the dispute flared in public a few months ago, though under the agreement now reached it has ceded the final say on restriction to the museum trust board.

Privacy was probably not the issue. Publication rights were at stake. Having won those rights, as his father plainly intended, Peter Hillary says he and his sister are keen to look at publishing Sir Edmund's diaries, perhaps in collaboration with the museum. There could be no better demonstration of the good will the parties claim to have found.

Peter Hillary hopes the material will show his father's ordinary fears, anxieties and philosophical concerns. It would do no harm to ensure that any publication does not expurgate contentious views. Sir Ed was not always afraid of controversy and the public would think no less of him if it reads some observations he had kept to himself and his diary. History needs raw insights to the great and famous and Sir Ed would not have given the museum anything he would want suppressed, even for 20 years.

It is to be hoped his children publish what they want to as soon as possible, and then adopt a liberal policy towards researchers and writers with different priorities. The stature of Sir Ed could withstand any scrutiny in life and the memory of him will outlive any revisionist view of his role in forming the national identity.

He accepted his role and would have welcomed this agreement. Now both sides must keep to its spirit.