Tony Abbott used an AFL term. A prominent human rights lawyer took her husband's surname. And McDonald's might be teaching your child science.

But was there any shell as bombing as the news that our Bronwyn had lost her bid to become president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union? Surely Madam Speaker would be practically perfect as the titular head of an organisation that has been the "focal point for world-wide parliamentary dialogue" since 1889.

And yet, when the votes were tallied from Geneva in Thursday evening, they revealed that Saber Chowdhury a former "prisoner of conscience" and current Bangladeshi MP had been elected instead. Bronwyn Bishop would have to settle for second place – otherwise known as international oblivion.

As the howls of desolation reverberated around Australian homes and offices on Friday morning, it was observed that the IPU is also supposed to foster "peace and co-operation among peoples" and defend human rights as "an essential factor of parliamentary democracy".

So maybe our Prime Minister's cheerful declaration that he would violently tackle the Russian President did not help things. And perhaps the fact that Bishop's most recent bid to relegate people who wear Muslim garments to the walled-in schoolkids' area also dented her cause.

But do not fear, Madam Speaker. As you dust off your chignon and your glittering brooches, there is no need to wonder "where to from here?" - there is a there to go to. As strange as it sounds, the Victorian Labor Party has a solution to your woes.

This week, the party announced that Dorothy Dixers would be banned from Victorian Parliament should Labor win the state election on November 29. The lower house speaker and upper house president would also have more grunt, with the power to rule that a minister's answer is "non-responsible" or "irrelevant". As Labor spokesman Martin Pakula argued, ministers would no longer be able to "hide behind stuffy rules" or "waste time grandstanding".

The idea is screeching out to be applied at the federal level. But it needs a champion to navigate the inevitable resistance from both sides of the politics.

When Bishop was elected last November, she proudly told the House that "I care passionately for [parliament's] traditions … I mean to be impartial". And yet, to date, she has made her name as a Speaker with a profound enthusiasm for kicking out opposition MPs and hosting Liberal Party fund-raisers in her parliamentary suite. And that's before you get to her statements about "facial coverings".

Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of banning burqas, Madam Speaker focused on banning dixers instead?

Next week when Parliament returns, at 2pm, MPs will duly gather in both chambers for question time. For the next hour or so, those tuning in will be subjected to a spectacle that is far from spectacular.

We probably can't do too much to reform the opposition side of things (that's up to Labor's strategy team), but we can certainly prevent the government from spending half of the session asking itself questions about itself. The problem is not so much that it is a free kick. Or that it is shamelessly self-indulgent. It is that Dorothy Dixers are repetitive, snoring and hair-tearingly uncreative.

Take this example from Victorian Liberal MP Sarah Henderson during the first question time of the 44th Parliament: "Will the Treasurer outline the state of the economy the Coalition government inherited? Can the Treasurer outline how responsible and prudent government will encourage growth, therefore assisting the constituents of Corangamite?"

And then this example from Henderson during the most recent sitting two weeks ago: "Will the Treasurer outline how the budget will boost growth and improve productivity? How will investment in productivity-enhancing infrastructure help my constituents in Corangamite?"

It is not heartening to note that as a former TV journalist, Henderson is better at delivering her questions than most MPs – so when it comes to Dixers under the Coalition, this is as good as it gets.

Of course, this is not just a Liberal or National scourge. When Labor was in government they were just as tedundant [tedious + redundant] in question time – this is why we need to get rid of the double Ds once and for good.

If you consider both the House and Senate QTs, dixers take up approximately 72 hours of the Parliament's time a year. That's 72 hours of "will the Minister please inform the House …" and "could you advise of any alternative approaches ..." and "how will this benefit communities in my electorate?".

We need Madam Speaker to ride in to the chamber in a tank (metaphorically speaking) and blast these blasted dixers from the chamber. And then we can spend those extra 72 hours on something really useful.

Like, um …

Judith Ireland is Fairfax Media journalist.