Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey's suggestion that prospective first homebuyers should access their compulsory superannuation nest egg to put down a house deposit inadvertently opened up a much-needed discussion about policy complexity. In particular, critics have sought to highlight a variety of adverse, unintended consequences that could arise if the proposal is implemented in isolation.

Economists have pointed out that a flood of new entrants seeking houses and apartments would further bid up already astronomical residential property prices.

Superannuation fund managers and political defenders of the compulsory superannuation regime, such as former Prime Minister Paul Keating, pointed out the proposal could further increase dependency upon the tax-funded Age Pension.

And, of course, the related point has been made that the Hockey proposal would undermine the compulsory superannuation objective of bolstering retirement incomes, since withdrawals would reduce compounded earnings accumulated over many years.

As a classical liberal, I find the very notion of forced savings objectionable, not least because it means policymakers paternalistically manipulate individual decisions concerning trade-offs between savings and consumption.

In forwarding his proposal, it appears Hockey instinctively understands the paternalism problem underpinning the compulsory super regime and is concerned about worsening housing affordability, especially for younger Australians.

But the critics of the super-for-house-deposit idea do have a valid point when referring to the likely counterproductive effect of the proposal upon house prices, certainly in the absence of deregulatory reform at the state and local levels to radically increase land availability.

The fundamental point to make here is that our system of government has become complex to such a degree that one-shot 'silver bullet' solutions would rarely achieve their laudable objectives, if they ever did at all.

Consider all of the major policy debates in this country today, and problems arising from the complexity of large, cumbersome government invariably come to the fore.

The major political parties, regardless of their ideological persuasion, have long seen merit in promulgating a regulation "red tape reduction" agenda often involving promises to hack away at formal edicts which work at cross-purposes with each other.

Our welfare system has become notoriously complex, with the recent welfare review by Patrick McClure concluding that the 20 federal income support payments and 55 supplementary programs lead to "a system that is difficult to understand, navigate and administer".

Worryingly, the elaborate yet incoherent regime of redistributive transfers, according to McClure, "leaves recipients unsure about the potential rewards from work".

And, of course, the Australian taxation regime with its multiple taxing points imposed by different levels of government is characterised by a most hideous degree of complexity, such that it has created its own thriving industry dedicated to assisting individuals file their annual income tax returns.

In arguably the ultimate indictment of such policy complexities, the then Treasury Secretary Ken Henry confessed in 2008 that "our tax-transfer system, designed for humans, now vastly exceeds human scale".

That fiscal and regulatory arrangements at the federal level have evolved in such a complex fashion as to be incomprehensible, at least to the average taxpayer, is concerning enough.

But adding to the complexity of modern Australian government is our "marble cake federation" in which multiple levels of government intervene in similar policy areas, irrespective of codified constitutional authority, simply adding to the complexity burden we live with.

Given the sheer scale of the simplification task ahead for reformers it may not be possible to quantify the benefits, for our economy, civil society, and democracy, which could arise from reducing the degree of complexity from government intervention.

That said, the benefits to be expected in the long run would, surely, be enormous.

One of the great complaints of the business community is that the compliance costs of navigating through established political systems of fiscal rewards or punishments, and regulatory permissions or vetoes, are substantial, wasting scarce resources in the process.

Reducing policy complexities should provide a spur for market-directed entrepreneurship, innovation and productivity, since the incentives for businesses and individuals to seek favours from government would be greatly suppressed.

Crony capitalism, forged by well-resourced economic insiders using their knowledge and mastery of rhetorical arts to persuade government to discriminatorily alter policy settings, would increasingly become economically and financially infeasible pursuits.

Of course, the burdens and costs surrounding the complex nature of government intervention are not restricted to economic concerns, but extend to non-economic matters ordinarily dealt with through civil society.

So, constraining political complexity should also help invigorate civil society, not least because it would empower individuals, families and communities to deal with unique problems, and risks attached with those problems, using their localised knowledge and resources.

Simplifying the ways in which the citizen and the state interact should also ameliorate the "democratic deficit" felt amongst many Australian communities.

A less complex structure of government and public policy should catalyse an improvement in electoral trust, and a greater political focus on less complex, and preferably fewer, matters should eliminate the errors of government failure and improve competence in public administration.

Simplification of government is a highly desirable objective in its own right but we should be under no illusion that the illogical contradictions of complex government can be resolved overnight, or abolished with a simple stroke of a political executive's pen.

There is certainly a role for changing modes of regulatory setting from the prevailing political tendency of prescriptiveness, largely in overreaction to current matters of concern, towards laying down regulatory principles allowing more flexibility for people to creatively solve problems.

As discussed by Peter Schuck in his book, Why Government Fails So Often, vouching for more simple rules in a complex world should enable application and comprehension of laws more cheaply and more predictably than when regulations try to account for all of life's nuances.

Another way in which complexity could be addressed is if Australia dedicates itself to a "one issue, one government" style of federalism, in which different levels of government are assigned exclusive expenditure, taxation and regulatory responsibilities without interference from other governments.

There is also something to be said for the broader classical liberal political enterprise favouring a wholesale reduction in the size and scope of Australian government, since limited government prospectively becomes a much more coherent government.

It is true that given our political system seems naturally geared toward complexity, simplifying government will not be for the politically faint-hearted.

So the question is: is there anybody in our political assemblies and legislatures at present up to the task?

Mikayla Novak is a senior researcher with the Institute of Public Affairs (ipa.org.au).

Twitter: @NovakMikayla