Parliament ended the year with a mixture of bang and whimper.

The whimper was the legislative “fight”. It says a fair bit about the way the government is travelling that the big political issue was the backpacker tax (important as it is for farmers, it is not one that should have caused such grief) and the passing of the Building and Construction Commission legislation. This has been so laughably altered from its original intent that the main issue for unions is ensuring the ABCC does adhere to the legislation – such as the requirement that the commissioner performs his or her functions “in an apolitical manner”.

The bang was a protest that disrupted question time.

There was, of course, a lot of hand-wringing over the protest – there always is when the left protests in Australia. After all, we had much the same response about disruption of democracy from the powers that be a couple years ago when students protested against Christopher Pyne during an episode of Q&A.

Senate passes building watchdog bill after changes to boost Australian jobs Read more

The protesters certainly did disrupt the proceedings of parliament, but they did no one any harm and were no danger to anyone. Their putting a stop to the proceedings of question time actually produced a net benefit to the nation’s IQ, even if only for three-quarters of an hour.

That’s not to say question time is unimportant or always brain dulling in its idiocy. There are times, mostly by accident, when something worthwhile does occur, but for the most part it is just a poorly scripted play performed by mediocre actors.

Consider the question posed by the Liberal MP Melissa Price to the prime minister, which was interrupted by the protest:

“Will the prime minister update the house on the government’s achievements, including how our economic reforms are driving jobs and growth? How will the Australian Building and Construction Commission help to improve productivity and reduce construction costs?”

Not a question that the nation waited with bated breath to hear answered.

But if you missed the answer, you needn’t have worried because the following day the member for North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman asked the PM this version:

“Will the prime minister update the house on the government’s achievements? How are those achievements, including reinstating the Australian Building and Construction Commission delivering stronger economic growth and benefitting hard-working Australians?”

Turnbull rejects conservative 'armchair critics' of ABCC bill Read more

It should be noted that on Wednesday it took Malcolm Turnbull two sentences to deliver his answer about attacking the ALP, while on Thursday it took him three.

Notionally his answer was about the passing of the legislation to reinstate the ABCC, but perhaps because the legislation was so neutered he felt on surer ground to talk about the ALP’s faults rather than his government’s achievements.

The ABCC legislation, however, nicely encapsulated the government’s policy process – rushed, sloppy and actually failing to deliver what was intended.

The government was so desperate to get the legislation passed that it agreed to all manner of amendments – including those that were highly protectionist, made the commissioner’s position virtually untenable, and those that didn’t make a lot of sense.

Take for example the amendment that was moved by the ALP senator Doug Cameron. It was notionally designed to ensure that projects covered by the act’s “building code” (which projects must adhere to in order to qualify for government contracts) do not hire foreign labour unless there is proper testing of the domestic market.

The amendments are a significant increase on current labour market testing for such projects. As the Guardian’s Paul Karp has reported, the amendment means that the required advertising must be done “in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position” and applies to all jobs regardless of how small they are.

But that isn’t the biggest issue.

The way the amendment is actually worded makes it essentially impossible to hire anyone and also adhere to the code.

Construction red tape may apply regardless of hiring Australians, experts warn Read more

The amendment states that “the Building Code must include provisions ensuring that no person is employed to undertake building work unless” there is that targeted advertising, and “the employer demonstrates that no Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident is suitable for the job”.

So no person can be employed unless the employer demonstrates that no Australian is suitable for the job.

That literally means that if employers can demonstrate that an Australian citizen is suitable for the job, they can’t employ them because they have failed to demonstrate that no Australian citizen is suitable for the job!

It’s a lovely catch-22 (or catch-23, subclause 2A (d))

Clearly it is meant to be no foreign person can be employed unless the employer demonstrates that no Australian citizen is suitable (note – suitable, not “available”) for the job.

Walkley Awards: wins for Guardian Australia's Ben Doherty and Greg Jericho Read more

But that is not what has ended up in the act.

Haste makes waste.

This government wanted to end the year with a win and was willing to do anything to achieve it – including not bothering to closely check the legislation that it was attempting to enact.