Editorial: Grounds for compromise in Hillary row

When he was alive, Sir Edmund Hillary allowed his life to be an open book. Always approachable for a good cause seeking his endorsement, or interviews on some aspect of his extraordinary pursuits, or just a quick comment on a subject of general interest, he appeared to live without fear of mis-statement or misinterpretation. So it may be said with confidence that when he bequeathed his personal papers, diaries and other printed and illustrated material to the Auckland Museum, he had nothing to hide.

Equally, when he added a proviso that none of the material could be published without the consent of his adult children for 20 years after his death, he was probably not acting out of concern for his posthumous privacy. Undoubtedly, he was trying to balance the public interest in his records with the normal wish of a parent to leave a legacy for his children.

The museum's apparent failure to strike the balance is hard to believe. Peter and Sarah Hillary should not need to go to court to enforce a right their father plainly intended for them. The museum holds that material entrusted to it in perpetuity becomes freely available public property and wants a court to say so.

Its "defining responsibility", it says, is to guarantee access for "researchers, scholars and the people of Auckland". It must do so, it argues, "to honour the desire of Sir Ed for his papers to be housed here".

Since Friday, when the Herald disclosed the dispute, the museum trust board has been reviewing the way the material was acquired and has declared its full support for the attitude taken by its director, Dr Vanda Vitali. It is an uncompromising attitude, that would probably be supported by writers, scholars and all who habitually put the public interest ahead of private gain. But there is surely room for compromise.

On the face of it, the clause in Sir Ed's will suggests that for the next 20 years no new biography of him could be published unless authorised by his family. No historian could use extracts from his papers and diaries except for passages published by, or with the consent of, his beneficiaries.

It may be hard to defend a rule so restrictive if the case comes to court as scheduled on June 24. The Prime Minister's intervention before then could produce an arrangement more satisfactory to the public interest. The Hillarys must accept that their father was a public figure, undoubtedly the pre-eminent public figure of this country.

His stature and candour were such that it is hard to imagine any re-examination of the record could do his reputation any harm, though there is no telling what a revisionist might do with any material. That is no reason to restrict access to it, and it is not a reason the Hillarys invoke.

Peter Hillary has given two grounds for seeking to strictly enforce their father's provision for them. One is privacy; the material in the museum includes family photographs and other personal items, he says. The other reason is authorial. He points out that he and Sarah Hillary have both written books and says the papers are of crucial interest to the family because of their interest in publishing.

Their privacy can easily be safeguarded. Material in public archives often contains items marked restricted, which can mean someone has the right to approve its use. Their authorial interests are harder to resolve. But a contract can surely be made that defines their exclusive rights to publish the material in certain forms while preserving independent access to it for purposes of wide-ranging research and references.

Both sides need to acknowledge Sir Ed's intention in providing for the other. His public and family commitments were never in conflict. Nor need they be now.