How do I break apart the middle part of 事实证明，澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件，破产事件反而证明这是澳方的软肋? Today I read an article about Australia considering blocking China importing baby formula (奶粉), which expresses the opinion that the current pandemic has shown what happens if China stops buying Australian dairy products: Australian companies go bankrupt.

In the final paragraph, there is:


  事实证明，澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件，破产事件反而证明这是澳方的软肋。
  不用对华限制出口了，澳大利亚牛奶巨头破产，更坏的消息在后面，2020年05月28日


I don't clearly understand how the part in bold breaks apart, particularly 非量 and 反制.


  Facts [事实] prove [证明], Australia [澳大利亚] ??? [非量] useless [没有用] dairy products [奶制品] conduct [进行] ??? [反制的] conditions [条件], bankruptcy [破产] events [事件] on the contrary [反而] prove [证明] this is [这是] Australia's [澳方的] weakness [软肋].


Question: How do I break apart 澳大利亚非量没有用奶制品进行反制的条件?

If it helps, Google Translate translates to:


  Facts have proved that Australia does not have the conditions for countermeasures with dairy products, but the bankruptcy incident has proved that this is Australia's weakness.
非量 must be a typo of 非但

事实证明 - Facts have proved
澳大利亚 - Australia
非但 - not only
没有 - doesn't have
用 - using
奶制品 - dairy products
(进行反制的)条件 - the prerequisite (of retaliating)
破产事件 - bankruptcy incidents
反而 - instead
证明 - have proved
这是 - this is
澳方的 - Australia side's
软肋 - weakness

事实证明澳大利亚非但没有用奶制品进行反制的条件, 反而破产事件证明这是澳方的软肋
The facts have proven Australia not only doesn't have the prerequisite of retaliating with dairy products (against China),  instead, bankruptcy incidents have proven this (dairy products trade with China) is Australia side's weakness

Note:
没有用 means 'useless' when it is used as an adjective
In the context of &quot;[没有][用奶制品进行反制]&quot; , '没有' = 'doesn't have' ; 用 = using