I do not pretend to understand the government's carbon emissions trading scheme, however, putting our faith in economists and free markets as the government would have us do is misplaced. If the global financial crisis has taught us anything at all it is that economics is not the exact science some might have us believe and that free markets operate for profit. The emissions trading scheme is another free market profit opportunity. That is not to say there won't be any benefits for the environment. There will be but it will be collateral. If we are serious about reducing carbon emissions then why not tackle the problem head on with a carbon tax instead of leaving it to the vagaries of the market?

David Groube, Weetangera

The climate change issue is being posed (by the fossil fuel lobby) as an either-or binary fallacy. MPs do not have to choose between saving jobs and saving the planet. They can do both by fostering non-fossil industries with tax hikes on fossil industries. When sailing ships were on the way out there was no compensation for sail makers. But there were prizes for crossing the Atlantic (by steam power) in record time.

Graham Macafee, Latham

Commissioner's comments

After several days of undiluted spin from Messrs Abbott, Abetz, Brandis and Turnbull about the ''perfectly proper'' and ''absolutely normal'' practice of having senior public servants meeting and feeding information to the Opposition '' on a regular basis'' an argument they hoped would dupe the public into believing that Godwin Grech had done nothing odd or improper it was refreshing to read the advice from the Public Service Commissioner, Lynelle Briggs ( ''PS warned over leaks destroying integrity'', August 7, p3). Plain speaking and unambiguous, Ms Briggs punched a hole right through the Coalition's case that ''there was nothing extraordinary'' in the Opposition ringing up or arranging meetings with Senior Public Servants (without any reference to their department heads or ministers ) in order to obtain information that they may then use to attack the elected government and call for the resignation of the Prime Minister! Ms Briggs should be commended for drawing attention of all public servants and Members of Parliament as well as many members of the media who appeared to swallow ,with nary a question, the Coalition line on this issue to the conditions of employment under which a non- partisan public service is expected to work. Such meetings or briefings ''should never occur without the knowledge and consent of the Agency head or the minister'' said the PSC, among references to trust, integrity and credibility qualities the Coalition seems not to recognise.

C. Taylor, Kambah

Public Service Commissioner Lynelle Briggs ignores reality in claiming that public servants who leak information are not whistleblowers (''PS warned over leaks destroying integrity'', August 7, p3). Implicit in the Commissioner's call to public servants to remain apolitical and impartial is a dire warning to all potential whistleblowers that they will be punished, no matter what their motives are. Briggs is disingenuous to suggest that the public service is apolitical and impartially professional when senior departmental appointments are decided by the government of the day to whom they must provide advice on government policy and programs. Those who wish to complain are required under new FOI legislation to go to their bosses and stay silent for six months while the problems are allegedly addressed. Every Canberra public servant can tell you of the career danger this situation poses for the complainant.

In this mix of human dynamics there is a very thin line indeed between poorly administered programs and corruption, and between leaking and whistleblowing in the Australian Public Service.

John Bell, Lyneham