THE Right to Know campaign, launched last month by media organisations to highlight how the Australian public is being denied information, has been enlightening.
Examples range from suppression orders surrounding the disappearance of toddler William Tyrrell that impeded his relatives appealing for help to details of buildings covered in flammable cladding not being publicised despite the safety risk and the troubles posed by pelvic mesh implants.
A culture of the political class not wanting the public at large to know too much is reflected in the laws which cover candidates' political donations and costs for federal elections.
This week we've seen those figures for independent candidates that ran in the May election.
The requirements for independents in relation to donation sizes also ensured voters discovered Dr Haines received a gift of $35,000 from Climate 200, an organisation set-up to support election candidates supporting strong action on global warming.
What was not in Cr Mack's submission was also intriguing.
The Australian newspaper reported in April that Chris Brooks, the leader of the irrigator group Voices for Farrer, had amassed a "$200,000 war chest" to aid Cr Mack.
The reality was well short of that mark.
However, because the donation laws apply differently to parties, voters will not learn how much the Liberals, Labor, Nationals or Clive Palmer's United Australia Party spent on their bids to win Farrer and Indi.
The individual spending tallies for those candidates are subsumed in party returns.
For the good of open democracy, voters should be allowed to know how much each party spent on a seat and their donations.
Instead you're left in the dark about exactly how much the conservatives spent on fighting independent rivals in Farrer and Indi and the amount of mining money Mr Palmer put into his bids, even though you have a right to know.