NOW is the time to get the Horticulture Code of Conduct right.
The reviewers are no doubt huddled away, carefully poring over the 43 submissions received about the Code's review, aiming to come up with a detailed solution.
At least, that's what we'd like to think.
It won't be an easy road to a satisfactory Code of Conduct but the journey has to begin somewhere.
It sounds like it would be hard to find anyone, be they grower, wholesaler, agent or whoever, who has had a happy and progressive experience with the Code.
One option put forward within the Issues Paper (released after the review's announcement and designed to create discussion) is to simply leave it as is.
Clearly, it's not working in its current form. So how to fix it?
All but five of the submissions are freely available for reading on the internet.
The submissions to the review show the strong concerns within the fresh produce industry over the Code.
There are well-thought and justified arguments for just about every angle so the reviewers have some solid reading to get through.
One point that shines through the submissions from just about all parties is the need for better education about the Code.
There is evidence to suggest growers really don't know much about it. There may have been a flurry of workshops or information provided when it was first launched back in 2006 but that's long died down.
That's also eight years ago. The means of getting information out to people has changed since then.
There are some recognisable names to have submitted responses to the review, and there are some major groups missing from the list.
As far as can be seen, many of the major representative groups for individual horticulture crops have not put forward their "two bob's worth".
This may mean they are content to let other bodies with which they are aligned do the fighting for them, or it may suggest they are holding back knowing key partnerships and current lucrative contract situations in place could be in jeopardy if changes occur.
It will be curious to see the response once the review is released, in particular, which groups respond, and how many of them made a submission.
The last thing anybody within the supply chain needs is an extra cost burden and paperwork.
Avoiding that might be tricky but achievable.
A totally agreeable "win-win" for all concerned parties may not be possible but the reviewers and government have to aim for as close to that as possible.
