You stated Australia is required by treaty to take in refugees. Does this treaty require Australia (and other signatories) to take in anyone, from anywhere, who arrives after passing through multiple prior countries, who claims to be fleeing persecution? Is this treaty open-ended about how long the signatories are required to feed, house, clothe, medicate and educate the refugees at the signatories expense? Does the treaty make any distinction between a refugee and an immigrant? To be realistic, many parts of the third world have perpetual wars and persecution *because* of the economic conditions — so 90+% of the “refugees” are actually, at root, economic immigrants.
In essence, your article tries to shame the signatories into providing a first-class life to poor immigrants, with no skills for modern life, who will provide nothing of value to the host country, but will demand to be taken care of. As described in the article, Australia already provides a better life than these people had at home, since the refugees aren’t being killed by their neighbors or government. And if your complaint is that they are sexually harassed, take another look: power harassment happens in *every* country, from the lowest socioeconomic level to the highest. Rape should be cracked down on, but as long as the “colonists” are receiving their allotted essentials, they are free to accept or refuse to barter for luxuries like cigarettes or extra shower time. You are making a sob story out of nothing, for people who are better off now than in their home country.