Tony Abbot wants Nauru to be used as a place of processing.  At a press conference on Saturday 17 September he said:

"My difficulty with the government's proposed legislation is that it does strip out the protections that the Howard government thought were necessary,"

"The Howard government and the coalition not only has the patent on offshore processing, it's pretty obvious having seen the legislation that we also have the patent on offshore protection."

He said other local Labor MPs were also likely to find the laws challenging.

"I think that Anna Burke, the member for Chisholm, Michael Danby, the member for Melbourne Ports; they're decent, compassionate people and I think they will find this legislation pretty difficult."

Mr Abbott overlooks the fundamental difficulty which Labor’s policy and the coalition’s policy both confront: the problem is not ‘Where do we process a person’s claim for asylum?’ but ‘What protection do we offer when they are assessed as refugees?’

Malaysia is no answer to that problem: it will simply leave them to rot, hiding in the shadows for years until some western country takes them and offers protection. 

Nauru is no answer to that problem: it is a bankrupt country with a population of about 10,000 people, they do not have enough food or water – they fly it in from Australia.  Does Abbott or Gillard seriously think that they can offer permanent residency to a few thousand more?  Putting it differently, if the Immigration Department is right, and refugees arrive at the rate of 600 per month (=7,200 per year) which country is better able to resettle them?  Australia or Nauru?  Only a fool would suggest that Nauru can cope with a larger population.  Only a politician would suggest that Australia cannot manage7,200 more people each year.