Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:55): Is that right, Member for Lilley—all the correspondence between the member for Lilley and the Reserve Bank has now been released? Is that right? Just nod your head. Has he released all the correspondence where the member for Lilley certified to the Reserve Bank that he would not take a dividend out of the Reserve Bank? Then he went and took a dividend of $500 million out of the Reserve Bank. Has he released that correspondence? Has he released all that correspondence—because, I tell you what, you have been caught out on this— Mr Bowen: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER: The members will both resume their seats. Mr Swan: Stop telling lies. The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley will withdraw. That is unparliamentary language. Mr Swan: I withdraw. Mr Burke: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer interjected the exact same word that was just withdrawn. The SPEAKER: If you did, Treasurer, withdraw. Mr Hockey: I withdraw. The SPEAKER: The point is that the member in his question made a proposition that all correspondence had been revealed. The Treasurer, in answering, was doubting that proposition and was seeking to get clarification from the former Treasurer, which is not within the standing orders. Accordingly, I would ask the Treasurer simply to finish his answer and we will then move on. Mr HOCKEY: I am happy to finish it, because I was asked about the Reserve Bank. I would say to the member for Lilley, as I say to all members over there: there are two things that they need to know about this issue— Ms Macklin: The answer is no. Mr HOCKEY: What was that? The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will desist, or she will be warned. Mr HOCKEY: There are two issues that need to be addressed. No. 1: the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund never went below 10 per cent when we were in government. That is my best recollection of it: we never went below. And we had consistent dividends taken out of the Reserve Bank during that time. Then, again from memory, in 2008-09, the then Treasurer took $5½ billion out of the Reserve Bank— Mr Burke: Speaker, I rise on a point of order under 104(a). the question did not go at all to the reasons for the money going there. It went to a specific guarantee given from that despatch box about the release of a letter. The SPEAKER: I am afraid, when the question related to correspondence which touched on all those issues, it is in order. Mr HOCKEY: When the previous Treasurer, the member for Lilley, took $5½ billion as a special dividend out of the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, which is a contingency fund set off against the riskiest assets of the Reserve Bank, fell to 3.8 per cent. In the interim, the member for Lilley, concerned about going to 3.8 per cent, gave a pledge to the Reserve Bank that he would take no more dividends; he would allow them to replenish the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund. Then, in his desperation to deliver a surplus, which of course Labor never delivered—and, I tell you what, he talks about telling porkies: he made 300 promises to deliver a surplus and not one of them was delivered—he took half a billion dollars out of the Reserve Bank. I flagged in February this year that I was concerned about the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund. I raised it publicly. One of the first things I did was contact the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Secretary to the Treasury and say to them, 'Do you have all the resources you need to deal with any challenges that might emerge over the next few years?' They came back and said they wanted 15 per cent in the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, $8.8 billion. Contrary to what the L-plate treasurer over there does not understand, the $8.8 billion is a grant within government. If he has not worked out that it comes back with dividends then he should not be there. Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, given that the Treasurer asked whether all letters had been released, I seek leave to table them. Leave granted.