It is possible to be a "good bloke", "a real prat", "a proper bastard" and an absolute idiot, all at the same time.
The difference is the audience as well as the "life" that is being portrayed.
As Gabriel Garcia Marquez observed, all people lead Three lives: the public, the private and the secret.
So yes, I'm sure Sir H. is a great guy in Mess, in the cockpit and in a lot of other places. However that does NOT mean automatically that he should chair anything.
It is my opinion that he was less than wise to accept a knighthood, which is a bizarre throwback to Tony Abbots past, completely out of keeping with Australias traditions, at least where we see ourselves these days. To my mind, that tells me something about Houstons belief system.
To put that another way, as I've said now in many different ways. Just because someone is lionised for their achievements does not automatically make them either (a) a nice person or (b) capable of taking on all sorts of new challenges.
To put that yet another way in reverse: President Lincoln, when told that his most successful General, Ulysses S. Grant, was a habitual drunkard, is said to have exclaimed: "then find out what he is drinking and send some to my other Generals!"
To make my point again: I find the early departure of Margaret Stalb troubling and the comments by a Chairman wading into a debate about Unicoms bizarre. Putting Two and Two together and jumping a mile to a conclusion, I wonder of Stalb ever had, or believed she was going to have, Houstons full support? Perhaps if I had explained myself that way I would not have to write the text of organisational behaviour 101 yet again. That is all.