The comments that she also made were around the fact that the science and evidence that she had seen meant that there wasn't anything else that she had seen that was anything better than structured literacy, when she was asked around this. So the question to the Minister is: why on earth, if that is the case, if that is what the evidence says, as Jan Tinetti has said—why on earth are we having a common practice model that the Minister has said today is going to include everything, whatever a teacher wants to put in there? It might be three cueing—if I look at the picture, guess from the context, have a look at the first letter of the word and try and guess it. Why is it, if all of the evidence and all of the science around the science of reading points to a decoding of the word to learn to read—why is it that this Government don't have the courage to stand up and say, "This is going to be the common practice model.", as Jan Tinetti herself said on Q+A, when pushed by Jack Tame this weekend? And isn't it the case that the Minister is just trying to keep everyone happy at the expense of teaching our kids to read in the manner in which the science suggests is the best way to teach them to read?