One Nation senator Pauline Hanson will investigate who wrote the exposure draft of the mandatory dairy code after it was met with confusion, disappointment and exasperation from farm advocates, and at least one Nationals MP.
"The exposure draft of the code was so poorly written, it is obvious that it has not been drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel so I'd like to know who drafted it and when?" Ms Hanson said.
"Further, I'm disappointed that a number of the recommendations made by the ACCC are not reflected in the draft exposure of the dairy industry code and that circumstances beyond the control of the processor are not defined within the code itself."
Ms Hanson's sentiment was echoed within the Coalition.
"The dairy code has been put out for exposure, and I'm bitterly disappointed because there's things here that I didn't think would be there anymore," Nationals member for Lyne in NSW David Gillespie said.
"So it's a work in progress, and that's about the most polite thing I can say.
"It's not fixing the problems or levelling the playing field, which was the intent of the ACCC report and of people who are trying to improve the lot of dairy farmers so that they could contract in a much better fair trading situation."
Dr Gillespie said he had concerns about the definition of a processor, exclusivity clauses, step down provisions and the ability for processors to make unilateral changes to contracts.
Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF), Dairy Connect, Farmer Power and the Dairy Farmers Milk Cooperative were all grappling to make sense of the code in the days following its release on Monday.
The clearest perspective came from Dairy Connect chief executive and former practising lawyer Shaughn Morgan.
"The principle that they should prevent unilateral changes to agreements is really not being abided by whatsoever," he said.
"Clause 27 allows, I think, the processors far too much wriggle room.
"The whole phrase, 'beyond the reasonable control of the processor', is not defined and it's not judicially considered.
"There have been some cases ... the courts are starting to interpret it in a very liberal manner.
"I'm sure this is coming from the lawyers acting for the processors ... saying we need that to remain because we need that flexibility to be able to go back into contracts if things go pear-shaped for them.
"Well, no, that was not was agreed during the first two periods of consultation.
"It's not what they agreed, it was part of the principles of the code of conduct, and now to change it in the final draft, I think is inappropriate and wrong.
"If they were going to make substantive changes, one, they should have highlighted them but, two, they should have been able to go out and say, 'Well, this is what we're going to do as a consequence of what we think is the most appropriate way forward'."
ADF chief executive David Inall was seeking legal advice to help interpret the code.
"We're not lawyers, as you know, but we've made a start on just trying to understand what some of the headline issues are in terms of contributions previously and where there might be some crossover and we need to do a deeper dive there and obviously will be in the process of getting legal advice as well on behalf of ADF and farmers," Mr Inall said.
He said ADF welcomed the earlier implementation timeframe, specified reviews of the code and the requirement for processors to announce their opening prices by June 1 each year.
However, ADF would be asking its lawyers to "pay special attention" to other areas.
"One of them is the cooling-off period," he said.
"It seems to read that a farmer and a processor can strike a verbal agreement but the processor has 30 days to supply written confirmation of that agreement.
"By the time the farmer's received that written agreement, the way we're reading it, you might have already gone past the cooling-off period."
The draft code stipulated that: "The milk supply agreement must not allow the processor to vary the agreement unilaterally for any reason other than circumstances that are beyond the reasonable control of the processor."
"What is the definition of what's beyond reasonable control?" Mr Inall said.
"And what is the mechanism by which a processor transfers risk to a farmer?
"There needs to be consistency there because, for example, a small processor might have a different risk profile than a large multinational processor."
ADF was also concerned about a raft of other clauses in the draft code, including exemptions for processors that were small businesses and the definition of 'processor' itself.
Under the draft code, 'processor' means a corporation that purchases, or that may purchase, milk from farmers.
ADF planned to consider the implications for processors who purchased milk through intermediaries or farmer cooperatives and would investigate the draft thoroughly.
"We've been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism around codes over the last couple of years and ADF, through the ADIC, took the lead on the original industry code, which was a heavy lift back in 2017, so it is a really complex and emotionally charged piece," Mr Inall said.
"At first glance, it has a lot of content that we've supported, we've identified a number of areas that we believe require further legal advice.
"It's taken time but we will make sure the farmers are well represented in our comments."
Farmer Power chief executive Gary Kerr said the confusing nature of the draft code would undermine its effectiveness.
"The mandatory code is unclear, it's ambiguous in the way it is presented," Mr Kerr said.
"There are contradictions that need clarification.
"It is written in legal speak rather than the clear English they say they want it to be and the way it's presented, the code itself is lacking and could have been done better.
"An agreement between a farmer and a processor under the code has to be in plain English so everyone can understand it.
"They should apply the same rule to the code itself."
United Dairy Farmers of Victoria president Paul Mumford was unavailable to comment on the pros and cons of the draft mandatory code despite repeated attempts to contact him in the three days after its release before Stock & Land went to print.