It could not be more Orwellian. Barry O'Farrell's government has triumphed in reducing funding for legal aid, community legal centres and the Environmental Defenders Office.
Miraculously it has badged this initiative as ''greater access to justice for the disadvantaged''.
Behind it all is a carefully concocted scheme to get rid of legal challenges to ministerial decisions approving new mining ventures, in particular coal mines and coal-seam gas projects.
Letters unearthed under public access to government information legislation show the extent of the orchestration.
In March last year the Australian Coal Association wrote to the NSW Premier complaining that the Environmental Defenders Office was running ''merits appeals'' in the Land and Environment Court against decisions by the minister or his delegate.
Review was sought in relation to Gloucester Coal's Duralie mine, Xtrata's Ulan coal mine and Coal & Allied's Warkworth mine.
''It seems perverse in the extreme that the EDO is using public funds to challenge the merits of decisions of a democratically elected minister,'' Nikki Williams, CEO of the Coal Association told the Premier.
Williams went further. To the coal industry's consternation, the democratically elected minister's decisions were ''being replaced by decisions made by unelected members of the Land and Environment Court''.
How outrageous is that?
It could be implied that the Coal Association, which accounts for 98 per cent of Australia's black coal production, is of the opinion that there should be no review by anyone of a decision by a minister or, more bizarrely, judges and assessors of the Land and Environment Court should be elected.
It may cause a zephyr of concern at the court, considering that its chief judge Brian Preston, was the first principal solicitor of the EDO and Nicola Pain now a L & E judge, was also a former principal solicitor and EDO board member.
In October the NSW Minerals Council was on the Premier's doorstep complaining about the EDO and its ''direct association with the Australian anti-coal movement''.
The plea was direct: ''We hope your government will cease funding the EDO as a matter of urgency.''
The letter to Mr O'Farrell from the Minerals Council was written by its chief executive Stephen Galilee, who had been Treasurer Mike Baird's chief-of-staff.
All of this behind-the scenes stuff had been accompanied by the steady drum beat of support from that mouthpiece of the upward thrusting pistons of free enterprise, The Australian.
It's state political reporter, back in March, was foreshadowing what was to come: ''The minerals industry is demanding to know why an organisation funded almost entirely by the NSW government provided legal advice for a campaign to 'disrupt' and 'discredit' the government's policy on mining and land use.''
Then there was the parliamentary questioning by the Shooters Party, which has been concerned that the EDO was providing legal advice to challenge its proposed shooting spree in national parks.
In October, the Energy Minister, Chris Hartcher, was reported as saying: ''This isn't just about coal and coal-seam gas. This is about the Left agenda to destroy the economy.''
It culminated last month in an announcement by Hartcher's factional ally, the state's attorney-general, Greg Smith, who revealed new guidelines for legal services funding.
He wants to make sure that the battlers get the legal aid money, not activists, or lobbyists or those challenging the government's planning and mining decisions.
What he forgot to say was that under his administration NSW Legal Aid is already on its knees. Eight lawyer positions have been terminated at the central city office of Legal Aid and the Manly office has been closed.
As the AG's spokeswoman put it: ''Maintaining a small, permanent office in Manly is no longer the most cost-effective way of servicing legal needs of disadvantaged people in the greater Manly area.''
This is what's called ''Greater access to justice for the disadvantaged''.
The fact is the government only provides a tiny amount to the EDO, about $200,000, with $1.6 million coming from the Public Purpose Fund.
This fund comprises interest accumulated on solicitors' trust accounts and some of it is divvied up for legal aid, community legal centres and organisations such as the EDO. The Attorney-General has a veto power over its funding decisions.
The next biggest category of spending by the PPF is the regulation of the legal profession. It must be comforting for clients to know that it is their money that props-up the creaky apparatus designed to apply a wet lettuce leaf to the wrists of lawyers who overcharge and otherwise act unprofessionally.
Maybe clients should rise-up and demand to have the interest on their own money, instead of it being allocated as a subsidy to the government.
The story of the EDO and its now diminished quarterly handouts is but one tale of how special interest groups have triumphed over public interest groups.
Earlier this month we saw the lifting of the freeze on new liquor licences in the southern part of the CBD.
This is based on a ''venue density'' study and its relationship to alcohol-related violence.
The release of the study by the Allen Consulting Group has been ''deferred'' by the government because it wants to trial something called EVAT, the environment and venue assessment tool.
The tool is a piece of software that will allow the licensing authorities to ''weigh the risks'' associated with a licence application.
It sounds complicated, but you can be sure that the liquor and pubs industry won't find it too complicated.
It's also straightforward as to who benefits from a government announcement earlier this week that there is to be a ban on outdoor smoking in public places - with the valiant exception of outdoor gambling areas in pubs and clubs.
You can combine at least three vices in one convenient location: drinking, gambling and smoking. The sectional interest, once again, triumphs, over the community interest, smothered in a layer of warm and fuzzy press releases.