Every three years senior MPs meet to reimagine Parliament, considering which rule changes might strengthen representative democracy and executive oversight.
Every four years international athletes meet to answer the call to be "faster, higher, stronger - together" (though Including an aim to be 'higher' in a contest with drug testing seems counter-intuitive).
New Zealand's Parliament strives similarly for improvement, and even more regularly.
Every three years, as the Parliament winds down towards an election, a cross-party group of senior MPs meet to consider how they might change the rules of the House of Representatives to make it better next time.
It is an eternal quest for the political grail: a stronger democracy, a more effective legislature, and a more rigorous oversight of executive government.
Listen to highlights from the first hearing, with ideas from Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Clerk of the House David Wilson.
Clerk of the House David Wilson engages in a wide-ranging conversation with the Standing Orders Committee about improving oversight of the Executive. Behind him the former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer waits for his turn. At the back constitutional lawyer Graeme Edgeler follows the discussion (he gives evidence next week).
Rule changes come into effect for the next Parliament. The idea is that without a clear idea which side of the House might be in government the MPs have less incentive to 'screw the scrum' to their own advantage.
This week that group of MPs (the Standing Orders Committee), began public hearings on reviewing Parliament's rules. First up were two heavyweights of New Zealand's constitutional and parliamentary arrangements: the Clerk of the House of Representatives, David Wilson (who runs Parliament's secretariat); and the former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer (who was an architect of the modern New Zealand Parliament). The committee will also hear from more submitters over the next few weeks.
You can listen to highlights from their evidence and the wide-ranging, fascinating discussion that arose from it at the audio link above. The full hearing can be watched online here.
A survey of the strands of submissions
This article isn't focussed on this week's evidence. Instead it attempts a quick survey of the breadth of written submissions that have been submitted by MPs, organisations and the public to this review of the rules.
No rule set in stone…