Australia's plans to send asylum-seekers to Malaysia were dealt a new blow Saturday, with the opposition criticising draft legislation intended to overcome a court ruling as damaging to human rights. The High Court last month blocked Canberra's proposal to send up to 800 would-be refugees to the Asian nation, prompting the government to seek to amend the Migration Act to ensure the transfers could go ahead. But opposition leader Tony Abbott, whose support is crucial to the bill being passed, said he was troubled by the draft law which he said would allow a system of "offshore dumping". Abbott, who supported asylum-seekers being sent to other countries when conservative leader John Howard was in government, said the new laws would remove safeguards for boatpeople. "My initial response, and that of my senior colleagues, is that the draft legislation strips out protections that the Howard government thought was necessary," Abbott said. Abbott said he was also troubled by some of the proposed changes which he said would give Immigration Minister Chris Bowen total discretion over where asylum-seekers could be sent. "It is really legislation for offshore dumping," Abbott said. "It's providing the minister with an unfettered discretion that doesn't require any need for relevant human rights standards." With her Greens coalition partners against the offshore processing of refugees, Prime Minister Julia Gillard's Labor government needs the support of the opposition to pass the amended legislation. The Malaysia proposal, which Gillard hopes will stop people smugglers from bringing boatloads of asylum-seekers to Australia, has already been criticised by refugee groups which accuse Canberra of abandoning its obligations. Under the proposed deal, Australia would send up to 800 asylum-seekers to Malaysia in exchange for accepting 4,000 of Kuala Lumpur's processed refugees for resettlement over four years. Refugee advocate David Manne also criticised the draft legislation, which was released late Friday, as going "well beyond" what the government had previously said was necessary.