But not everyone is happy about the expert panel. The legal profession remains the most critical, not surprisingly, as it has the most to lose. Mr Macintosh made himself a target for the lawyers by noting “extraordinary opposition, in a covert way, from the legal profession because we are talking about money”. 

What the lawyers wanted was a panel of lawyers. David Faram, the President of the Law Institute of Victoria, said Mr Macintosh is not suitable. “You don’t need the Mayor of Bathurst to tell you there’s a public liability crisis,” he said. “This should be a panel of eminent jurists.”

Jane Staley, the CEO of the Australian Plaintiffs Lawyers Association, said the people who brought the panel together “have moved away from the original concept of an expert legal panel to instead include panellists who represent vested interest groups such as the medical profession and local government”. (Obviously she doesn’t consider lawyers “vested interests”.)  She is also distressed that some panel members have “delivered their conclusions to the media before the panel has even met.”

Despite the fact that there are no insurance experts or victim advocacy groups represented on the panel, Ms Staley said the credibility of the review process has been “eliminated by heavy-handed bias towards the interests of defendants and their insurers.”

The Law Council of Australia takes a more subtle approach. It’s not so concerned about the panel’s qualifications, but it is worried about the timeframe the panel has been given to come up with recommendations.

Law Council secretary Michael Lavarch said the panel had less than three months to consider options that would normally be enough for at least three broad Law Reform Commission inquiries. “This will make it very difficult to properly consider the technical issues involved, not withstanding the qualifications and expertise of the members of the review panel.”

Justice Ipp, who is said to be a strong supporter of reducing the costs of the legal system, is already on the record as having an open mind about capping payouts. He thinks it’s a solution that may be “quite crude” but which also might be “necessary”.

“There is a general perception in the community that the law of negligence has gone over the top,” he said.