The chief of Australia’s corporate plod has stood aside pending investigations into A$118,000 that was paid by the Australian Security Investments Commission for personal tax advice when James Shipton was moving back to Australia to be the top watchdog.

Standing aside from the position is the prudent step to take when an investigation proceeds into the affairs of a senior office bearer. This shields the organisation from criticism that might be levelled at it about the probity of any investigations that might be done into the substance of any allegation.

In this case the underlying question is how this expense was allowed to work its way in what appears to be its entirety through the books of the corporate regulator? Why was the expense even paid to that extent by the regulator? What does this mean for the perception of the regulator in the marketplace?

The issue was brought up with ASIC by the Australian National Audit Office in the context of audit. The ANAO has served the community well yet again in the context of reviewing the ASIC’s books and alerting the community to an illegitimate claims for reimbursement for advice on the ASIC chief’s tax affairs as well as relocation expenses in the case of ASIC’s top legal attack dog, Daniel Crennan.

Clearly it is important for ASIC as the corporate regulator to have - and be seen to have - its nose clean on all matters of probity, since it is the body we as a community rely on to keep the corporate sector honest.

You cannot have the corporate regulator look compromised, and these events raise questions around why such a claim for tax advice was authorised and paid. In all likelihood it’s down to the senior staff clerk; so blame it on middle management and blame it on the regulator’s corporate culture, and for Shipton there’s no dodging accountability for governance and culture.

This controversy arises at a time when the regulator has been seeking to tie up the loose ends from the Hayne Royal Commission, scandals that in some cases share themes with the Shipton incident, where advisers, agents and other assorted characters behaved poorly because they focused on maximising commissions or bonuses at the expense of reputation.

The fact Shipton stood aside from his duties on Friday means the regulator is able to properly assist the independent review by Vivienne Thom, the former Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (and also the former Commissioner of Patents and Registrar of Designs for IP Australia.)

There are several other issues of principle that emerge from this case study and also that poppy fracas last week over the Australia Posts chief’s purchase of time pieces (as executive bonuses) at retail prices that would make the average person on a Centrelink benefit turn red with anger.

Government agencies spend their time chasing bad actors in the corporate sector and the community that have committed fraud or some other crime. The government itself must ensure that it sets the standard for governance and probity.

This does not just mean