Amid growing frustration from the Coalition about not being able to get a word in during Question Time, last week Crikey proved conclusively that the current Labor government members are much bigger windbags than those in the Howard government.

Our study revealed that former Prime Minister Howard took an average of 350 words to answer a question. Howard was able to answer questions with a simple yes or no. Sure, it wasn’t an informative answer but it kept the Question Time ball rolling. Kevin Rudd’s average answer length is 520 and the word count climbs as Julia Gillard brings it home with 745.

Although it’s written in the Question Time rule book that an answer is not permitted to turn into a lengthy speech, apparently this is too open for interpretation by the Rudd government. Perhaps our rule book could cut and paste from Canada’s.

Canada has a current time limit of 35 seconds for a question and an answer. According to the Canadians’ Hansard, this is more than enough time provided they minimise their heckling of the Opposition. But where, Gillard may well ask, is the fun in that?

A time limit on answers was refused in favour of a minimum average of questions allowed to be asked within the Question Time, which, in theory, minimises the risk that answers are drawn out to avoid undesirable questions.

If the jeering does get out of hand during this 35 second period, the Speaker has the power to disconnect microphones, a privilege sure to be heavy with temptation.

So how does Question Time work in other countries? Let’s turn to other democracies for inspiring tips on how to keep proceedings moving in a civilised way while staying informed. Best avoid South Korea for starters.

Parliamentarians should consult the South Korean National Assembly brawl for a lesson in how not to behave: the fight coined the phrase Legislative Violence, meaning the act of punching, slapping, kicking, spitting, head-butting, elbow-dropping and whipping within Question Time.

But Legislative Violence is not unique to South Korea, it can safely be said that you don’t want to aggravate a Bolivian politician.

Meanwhile, microphones are considered a weapon in India.

India may have Legislative Violence to increase its ratings (yes, it’s all televised), but it also has a 150-word limit for preambles. If an answer is predicted to require a detailed, time-consuming answer, a half-hour discussion time can be requested up to 11 hours before Question Hour.

In contrast to other nations knuckling it out, the Japanese Question Time, the Diet of Japan, reflects the refined Japanese culture.

Respect is paid and returned and the Question Time ambush is performed in a certain way so as not to humiliate the respondent. It’s not so much a series of traps leading the respondent to appear inept but rather it’s a question that requires an answer.

If Question Time is influenced by culture, it doesn’t look good for Australian politicians, perhaps that’s why they regularly resort to behaving like a cultureless penal colony.

A simple time limit on questions and answers could help, or perhaps we should just hold Question Time in the Thunderdome and let them cage fight it out.