Contrary to conventional wisdom, turkeys do vote for Christmas.
In a rare display of cross-party unity, our members of Parliament have apparently indicated a willingness to take "a pay cut": they are virtually all calling for an end to the international travel perks regime, the furnace of public scrutiny having claimed yet another victim in the form of the hapless National MP and Minister of Women's Affairs, Pansy Wong.
This can only be because they know that they are on a hiding to nothing.
Having estimated the futility of defending the indefensible - and considered the prospect of further roastings - they have evidently decided to make a virtue of this new-found abstemiousness and are now falling over each other in the rush to get rid of it.
To recap: the perk allegedly introduced in lieu of a pay rise - whereby contributions from supposedly foregone salaries were pooled to be used to fund travel - allowed MPs to claim a 25% rebate on personal international travel for themselves and their spouses or partners after their first term in Parliament; after six years the entitlement rose to 50%, after nine to 75% and after 12 to 90%.
This benefit is a lifetime one: an MP having served four terms is entitled to 90% of international travel for life.
Just what limits if any are imposed on such travel, or how it is managed, is opaque.
Like much else concerning the MPs' benefits, the more you get into it the murkier it gets, the more questions arise and the less accessible seem the answers.
Regardless, it gives rise to the mind-boggling image of a group of superannuated Kiwi MPs endlessly jet-setting around the world at the expense of the taxpayer.
For MPs elected in 1999 and beyond, the benefit was limited to their time in Parliament.
It would not extend beyond.
Again what, if any, payoff was negotiated in return for this concession is unclear.
The reason this issue is current is that Mrs Wong took her husband, Sammy, on a trip to China paid for by the taxpayer, during which he conducted private business - and conducting private business on taxpayer funded trips is clearly against the rules.
Until last year MPs' partners could travel separately using the perk as long as it was to take a holiday - and Parliamentary Service paid out the cash no questions asked.
Referring to Mrs Wong's trangressions, Mr Key said: "The way it's worked is her husband has actually used the parliamentary discount and booked the trip directly through her office."
How many time this has happened is as yet unknown, although the service is believed to be working its way through 10 years of Mrs Wong's claims.
In her resignation statement, Mrs Wong was unable to assure the Prime Minister the trip had been a one-off.
Rodney Hide, who made a career out of bagging his fellow MPs for their appropriation of perks, fell foul of public opinion on the matter when he took his partner on overseas trips and holidays to the tune of $22,000 - most of which he subsequently paid back amid endless piteous mea culpas; now he's grandstanding on the need to get rid of it.
How he imagines he has any credibility on the matter is beyond me.
And then there was dear old Chris Carter who, in different times, would have got away with his $57,000 worth of party-sanctioned, work-related travel for himself and his partner; but for all the world he could not see that the winds had changed.
While pandering to public sentiment, the abolitionists make good sense.
To be fair, one or two MPs have been been reasonably consistent on the matter.
Greens co-leader Metiria Turei on Monday renewed her calls for an independent overhaul of the entire remuneration and expenses system.
Opposition leader Phil Goff has read the public mood, too, firmly dealing to the at-times petulant Mr Carter.
On Monday he was also calling for the system to be scrapped.
But it was Mr Key who hogged the headlines on Monday afternoon with his resolute instruction to Speaker Dr Lockwood Smith that the perk be withdrawn.
Just over a week ago he was accusing Dunedin North MP Pete Hodgson of muckraking over the Pansy Wong matter.
Now he can't bury it quick enough.
Whether it will sink without trace is another matter.
Mr Hodgson has raised further questions for Mrs Wong, and there is still the matter of that Parliamentary Service investigation.
As they say, a week is a long time in politics.
Simon Cunliffe is assistant editor at the Otago Daily Times.
