I'm tempted to ask that this line of talk be stopped, but I must say:
why do we not process legitimate and legal asylum seekers the same way that the EU does?
7-14 days, each country in the area has X spots free, 'do you want to go here, here or here?'
of course, there's practically no countries around us for that, besides NZ and Indonesia, and I doubt Indonesia would agree to such a thing.
Define how you determine who is a legitimate and legal asylum seeker?
A person who presents to an Australian embassy and requests asylum, sure. A person who violates our nation's borders and enters in contravention of our laws has committed a crime, regardless of whether or not they are a refugee.
If you steal a car, that is theft. The police will arrest you. If it turns out you stole the car because you needed a way to get yourself or another to a hospital quickly to save their life, the police will most likely release you without charges. If you stole it because you preferred it to walking, you're gonna face criminal charges.
Saying you're a refugee isn't carte blanche for violating border law. If you want to avoid detention, enter through official channels. If you can't, accept the penalty for breaking the law until your claim is recognized as legitimate.
Also note that the options for refugee status persons are defined by the UN as: voluntary repatriation to the country of origin; local integration into the country of asylum; and resettlement to a third country. The PNG solution is legal.