rache makes an interesting observation in saying:

"My point was really that the significance of the reintroduction of the legislation is being overblown, with talk of double disillusions.

The legislation wasn't defeated because it was somehow administratively faulty.
Fielding voted no mainly because he wanted Rudd to go even further and put warning labels on alcohol and look at sports sponsorship issues."

Indeed, the significance of the reintroduction of the legislation is being overblown. Its passage or rejection is no longer the issue. The real issue is one of the government having acted outside the law in collecting the alcopops tax without having had the legislation authorizing it first passed by the Parliament. Contempt for Constitutional and Parliamentary process is now the issue. I have already explained the position the government has now placed itself in with respect to 'security of tenure' or the exercise of discretion as to when it may go to the people short of full term.

It is at this point that GrahamY's observation that:

"I will admit that double dissolution elections tend to get fought on alternate issues to the ones on which they are called, but then that is often the case for elections which are often called a bit early on spurious grounds."

may come to be seen as prophetic.

Should it be considered that the continued pursuit of the record levels of immigration currently being experienced is occurring simply to import a voter base likely favouring and big enough to effect a change of the Australian polity to that of a republic, combined with a public perception that the government is totally mishandling the illegal entry issue of secondary movement asylum seeking for exactly that same reason, then you could have a real election issue.

With the current leaders of both major parties both known to favour and desire this change in the face of its recent rejection by the electorate, that would seem to leave Australia stuck with an 'outlaw' would-be rule-by-decree government. Double disillusion indeed.

Unless the Governor-General can propose another Constitutionally valid solution.