Ms Hanson’s arrival on the political scene in 1996 led to unprecedented protests and rancour both within the parliament and broader community, with a police escort required nearly every time she spoke.

Ms Hanson’s opponents satisfied themselves that they were taking the higher moral ground on issues such as multiculturalism and immigration, and that the ugly scenes outside each of Ms Hanson’s speaking engagements were a small price to pay.

Ms Hanson’s appearance in on the parliamentary floor was also a distraction for both major parties who poured inordinate resources into trying to smear her and embarrass her.

Twenty years on, Ms Hanson has again been elected to federal parliament, making her one of the great political survivors of her generation.

And how her return to parliament is handled by those around her will be interesting to watch.

The time for treating Ms Hanson with snobbish disdain must surely have passed.

When she first arrived on the political scene, Ms Hanson looked different to the MPs around her and sound different as well.

The Liberal and Labor parties both saw her as an impostor, an abberation that needed to be exposed. But every time they tried to belittle her, her strength grew.

One Nation’s supporters saw themselves as the underdogs and the major parties’ treatment of their hero confirmed their suspicions.

Her election is not an abberation and her supporters are not all small-minded bigots.

Ms Hanson is still here because the major parties have not heeded the message that a large part of our population still feels like no-one is listening.

Her election is as much a credit to Ms Hanson’s ability to connect with voters as it is a condemnation of the major parties’ rejection of voters.

A mature democracy does not have to agree with Ms Hanson’s politics or rhetoric, but it should acknowledge that she remains popular for a reason.

Instead of isolating Ms Hanson, the major parties would do well to engage her and try to truly understand her supporters’ concerns.

Two decades of sneering elitism has failed to end Pauline Hanson’s political career.

Now is the time for a new approach.

- – – – -

IT IS not another secretary-general that the United Nations needs, be it Kevin Rudd or someone else.

It's a new direction and a new singular line of united purpose.

Founded in 1945,  it is currently made up of 193 Member States.

The UN was formed after World War II to replace the inept League of Nations to prevent another world war.

Instead we have the murder and mayhem referred to above and witnessed now on a daily business. 

A quote from one of Hitler's ministers before the actual start of World War 2 to a German crowd was: "Do you want guns or butter?".

They roared, "guns".

Nothing changes, it seems.

Norman Cousins, the late world peace advocate, wrote: "If the UN is to survive , those who represent it must bolster it; those who advocate it must submit to it and those who believe in it must fight for it."

Say no more!