I think there's a problem with welfare statists like Iron (someone who, to me is a neoconservative posing as a neoliberal but talks more like a socialist).
If we assume that he's come kind of a liberal, he seems to think that the absence of governmental coercion amounts to a "society that throws the poor to the dogs and treats the mega rich like gods". Implicit in the assumption is that it is the proper role of government to act as a moderating influence in providing just outcomes. But what is justice? Justice is a moral concept. To describe a state of affairs as unjus is to say that someone is responsible for bringing something about. It follows that where there is no responsibility there is no injustice. The consequences of material interactions for the material circumstances of particular people are not intended by the market participants, nor under their individual control. Since obviously a governmental system characterized by an absence of coercion (except to mitigate harm - as in life liberty, property), can not be held responsible for such consequences, the resulting market position of citizens can not be described as just or unjust.
It is simply a brute fact without moral relevance. Therefore, the idea that social justice exists is a mirage.
Iron's welfare state is necessarily paternalistic, fails to respect individuals as thinking and choosing agents, and rests upon the use of illegitimate coercion whereby resources are stolen from those entitled to keep them and persons are prevented from realizing their own values in their own way. Quite independent from its practical failings, Iron (and his ridiculous vision for Australia) is morally bankrupt. (not to mention his obnoxious god bothering)