But a much bigger mystery last week or a much more important one was the gagging order on Australia's media that came to light on Wednesday morning:

QUIET, PLEASE: The story we are not allowed to publish — News.com.au, 30th July, 2014

That secret story about a so-called super-injunction was first revealed in the mainstream media by Fairfax's Philip Dorling who told us:

WikiLeaks publishes 'unprecedented' secret Australian court suppression order — Sydney Morning Herald, 30th July, 2014

The Herald wasn't game to tell its readers much more than that, except to warn:

No Australian media organisation can legally publish the document or its contents. — Sydney Morning Herald, 30th July, 2014

Nor did the Herald dare to link to the Wikileaks website, where you could read all about it ... As many thousands of Australians soon did.

And close your eyes folks, because here it comes ...

Minus the naughty bits so we don't end up in jail.

And it's not actually a super injunction because if it were we couldn't even tell you it existed.

But, as last Wednesday went on, more details did emerge.

The Guardian was brave enough to tell us the suppression order banned Australia's media from reporting:

... political bribery allegations ... ... involving international politicians ... — The Guardian, 30th July, 2014

which were being raised in Victoria's Supreme Court.

And by the end of the day it was clear those allegations related to a long-running bribery scandal involving the Reserve Bank of Australia and its former subsidiary Securency, which prints banknotes for some of our Asian neighbours.

As the man who exposed this scandal, Fairfax Media's Nick McKenzie, was soon telling ABC TV News ...

NICK MCKENZIE: This suppression order prevents the Australian public, and the international public, from knowing about what these powerful people overseas may have done, whether they engaged in serious corruption or not, and it shouldn't be the role of Australian courts to suppress what is vital public information. — ABC, 7pm News, 30th July, 2014

The suppression order was granted six weeks ago to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which wanted to spare the blushes of 17 Asian political figures.

But by midday on Wednesday, thanks to Wikileaks, it backfired badly, because their names were lighting up the internet here and overseas ...

With eight politicians identified in these two foreign papers...

Meanwhile, Australia's journalists were still unable to tell us what it was all about and decided to throw the switch to vaudeville.

WILL OCKENDEN: Can we mention that (censored) the (censored) is involved? PETER LLOYD: No. We can't do that. WILL OCKENDEN: Can we say that (censored), the (censored) is involved? PETER LLOYD: Can't say that either. WILL OCKENDEN: There's 17 people on this list. We can't mention any of them? Even (censored)? PETER LLOYD: What we can say is that this is a suppression order relating to people in leadership positions in world government. WILL OCKENDEN: But that's it? PETER LLOYD: That's pretty much it. It's a short story. — ABC, PM, 30th July, 2014

Victoria's courts which granted this suppression order are renowned for so doing, and they've served up 1500 over 5 years, or more than one a day.

Which is at least twice as many as the courts in NSW.

But remarkably the orders themselves can be hard to track down. As we discovered when we phoned the Victorian Supreme Court and asked in relation to this case:

Are the suppression orders online anywhere we can see them? — Media Watch phone call to Supreme Court of Victoria, 31st July, 2014

To which the court's officer replied:

No, that would involve us publishing them — Media Watch phone call to Supreme Court of Victoria, 31st July, 2014

We then asked:

Can you tell us how many there are? — Media Watch phone call to Supreme Court of Victoria, 31st July, 2014

To which the court's officer replied:

No. — Media Watch phone call to Supreme Court of Victoria, 31st July, 2014

But eventually the court was able to tell us that more than ten suppression orders have been made in the Securency case alone .... all of which are potentially still current.

Now some of these may well be necessary to ensure a fair trial.

But the latest order was granted to the Government in part to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to national security.

And if that is really code for 'Let's not embarrass Asian political figures' we don't believe the secrecy can be justified.

Nor does media lawyer Justin Quill.

JUSTIN QUILL: ... in my view, someone's reputation being affected just should never be, never be, a reason for the making of a suppression order ... JUSTIN QUILL: If people were embarrassed about something, then that is probably a red flag to say the public ought to know about this person's conduct. — ABC News Radio, Drive, 30th July, 2014

Open justice and free speech-which this government claims to champion-are fundamental to our democratic system.

Secret court proceedings are its enemy.

And one high-profile Asian leader agrees. On Friday, Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, called a press conference to tell the media that any allegations made in the case should be out in the open, so no one can suspect a cover up.

And if you think the whole saga is more than a little ridiculous we'd agree with you.