aquaculture) would be welcomed. It is not clear, for example, whether viticulture or beekeeping would be captured -The mediation process under the bill could be expected to take a number of weeks or months to complete, assuming that a mediator is available and both parties commit to the process. The bill does not have a procedure to deal with circumstances of urgency (including, for example, destruction of property, animal welfare, biosecurity or other risks) which may, in the absence of co-operation from the farmer, justify immediate enforcement action to address those risks and preserve security value. An ability to apply to MPI or the Court for permission to enforce in those circumstances may assist in that respect -The bill includes, in the definition of enforcement action restrained by the moratorium, the issuing of notices under section 119 or 128 of the Property Law Act. In our view, the bill should allow for those notices to be issued and run concurrently with the mediation process under the scheme -There may be situations where a farmer willingly (and with the benefit of legal advice) consents to enforcement action, or invites the appointment of receivers, in circumstances of hopeless insolvency. While the bill does not permit contracting out of the scheme, it should be permissible in those circumstances to allow for immediate appointment without the necessity of seeking an enforcement certificate -The bill does not address the possibility of multi-party mediation, either in relation to multiple farming entities (controlled or owned by the same farmer) or multiple secured lenders -It is not clear under the bill as drafted whether the extension of the moratorium on enforcement action to guarantors of farm debt is intended to prevent enforcement against non-farm property (as opposed to farm property only) owned by those guarantors.