Paul Holmes: Museum's arrogance is of the highest order

The dispute between the Auckland Museum and the children of Sir Edmund Hillary seems complicated but it is not. Indeed, it is hard to work out how it came about at all. It seems only to be about the attitude of the museum and its director Vanda Vitali and the Hillary children's concerns about their right to publish, the right that Sir Ed bequeathed them.

No one, as far as I can work out, is disputing Sir Ed's will. Sir Ed gave ownership of "my personal papers, diaries, maps, colour slides, photographs and other written and illustrative material relating to my life and adventures" to the museum, with the proviso that "no other person nor any corporate body may publish any such material without the agreement of my children".

Note that well. "Nor any corporate body", which means, for example, I guess, the Auckland Museum.

And that is where it has become sticky.

The Auckland Museum, because it has ownership, seems to think it can do as it wishes with whatever it wants.

While Sir Ed's life was majestic on many occasions, it was also a life that endured profound and lasting grief. Some of that grief will have been given expression throughout those papers.

Sir Ed was more complicated than many people realised. Of course he was. He was a great man and no great man is uncomplicated.

Peter is complicated too, I think. Peter is an extraordinary achiever in his own right, a fact too often unrecognised.

He has conquered Everest twice. On one other occasion he made the canny decision, because of an instinct about the weather, not to attempt the summit and retreated. Those who carried on that day died.

So what is the dispute about? It remains, even from the interviews Peter has done, hard to know.

There is no suggestion from him the children think Sir Ed was wrong to have left everything to the museum. There is no suggestion the children want ownership back.

There is no real suggestion he is being denied access. But there has certainly been a terrible breakdown of communication between him and the museum.

Peter Hillary is a softly-spoken, serious, intelligent and reflective man. He is intense but he has a sense of humour that moderates the intensity. I have interviewed him and spoken with him on several occasions over the years. He is easy company and his wife Yvonne is warm, supportive and charming. I cannot see that either would be difficult to deal with.

The answer appears to be the attitude of the museum, in particular an alarming high-handedness about the museum's director, Vanda Vitali.

I noticed her when she was appointed and arrived here only because of a certain sharpness in her utterance.

I thought, when I heard her on the radio once, that here was someone of a no-nonsense disposition who knew what she wanted and what she wanted to achieve. I thought she would be a good, fresh direction for the museum or for any organisation. She would put her stamp on things, no doubt about it. This week she has appeared shrill, hard and intolerant. She has misjudged the Hillary issue with breathtaking clumsiness. You cannot mess with the Hillary legacy in New Zealand. You must handle anything to do with the name Hillary with the greatest of care.

June, Lady Hillary, always understood this perfectly. She knew exactly what the name Edmund Hillary meant to this country and was vigilant about protecting both Sir Ed's image and his legacy. I sensed this many times. Once, I approached her to see if Sir Ed would consider a long pre-recorded interview about his life. My intention, of course, was that this would be the valedictory interview which might have a place in the commemorations after his death. I did not say this when I spoke to June about it but she understood, I'm sure. It was a delicate thing. When I followed up with a phone call to the Hillary house a few days later, June was the gatekeeper. "No, Paul, he doesn't want to do it. That's all." There was no rudeness, just firmness. The matter was closed. June protected the man and the meaning with a careful watchfulness.

But again, what is the row about? As the week matured none of the parties was saying anything further. The Prime Minister's office, I understand, told the parties to turn down the volume.

I do know this, however. The Hillary family regards itself not only as a mountaineering and adventure family but a publishing one as well. I think if you count them all up, the Hillarys have published about 20 books between them. Sir Ed could write very well. Peter wrote a fascinating account of his desperate Antarctic journey. I imagine Peter wants simply that part of their life to be free and unfettered. He and his sister have, after all, the intellectual property rights to the publishing of their father's materials. He may have felt that right was under threat. It might simply be an argument about tone.

And the tone of Vanda Vitali in that statement issued by her PR flak this week which referred to the screaming public has been hard and imperious. As a museum director, as the woman charged with the preservation of Edmund Hillary's writings, diaries and the photographs of the life and family of our most beloved hero, she is a class-A public relations disaster.

The statement her public relations man released the other day said everything. "Our position is one of logic, rationality, and free and open access to information for all vs censorship and historical revisionism." That is arrogance of the highest order. I imagine it inflamed the Hillarys.

Why would you leave anything to Auckland Museum under this regime?