Aboveboard? Dunno...

There are rules and regulations put in place to ensure fairness in the distribution of government largess. There's a good reason why government is careful about handing out lucrative contracts to the private sector through a process of competitive tendering.

It ensures fairness in giving opportunity to any bidders who have the necessary professional expertise to produce good work on behalf of government, paid by taxpayer-funded contracts. It ensures that insider contacts will not benefit some potential contractors to the detriment of others.

It teaches legislators and others who have some degree of authority in procuring public services through the private sector that there is oversight to ensure that responsible decision-making takes place in the interests of fair distribution of opportunities and competent management.

It speaks of acknowledging the fact that government coffers do not represent an infinite bowl of gold at the end of the rainbow. It ensures accountability. Sad that it's even needed, but it is. All governments, no matter whether they're Liberal-led, Conservative or otherwise, tend to forget, from time to time, the necessity for accountability.

It's just so quick and easy to figure that your contacts, your supporters, your personal acquaintances are capable, and why not offer them opportunities? Easy to convince oneself there's nothing dishonourable about discounting the need to observe process; it's an efficiency.

So here's a parliamentary committee looking into allegations that government ministers are favouring friends, supporters, one-time colleagues in by-passing the competitive process. Tendering contracts to what they deem are suitably capable and reliable sources, because they can.

Doesn't look good. But then the principals involved, those with high enough rank can always claim that it was their staff that erroneously made these decisions. They can invoke, as has been done, the problem of "administrative errors" leading to the awarding of hefty contracts to erstwhile acquaintances.

They can then state, to their interlocutors, "It's clear some administrative functions were not followed. That upsets me." If he's upset, it's because he would himself have assiduously observed the process, not by-passed it as his staff has ostensibly done.

The fall-out can be so embarrassing.