Lawyers for Slipper say allegations he defrauded the Commonwealth should be investigated by parliament, not the courts.

But prosecutors say politicians should not expect to be always protected from criminal prosecution by parliamentary privilege.

Slipper, who did not attend Wednesday’s challenge in the ACT Supreme Court, is accused of misusing Cabcharge vouchers to take a taxpayer funded tour of Canberra wineries in 2010, amassing a travel bill worth about $1000.

The former federal member for the Queensland seat of Fisher has pleaded not guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court to the three charges.

The matter was listed for trial in December, but those proceedings have been postponed while the higher court hears Slipper’s challenge.

Slipper’s legal team on Wednesday asked Justice John Burns to permanently stay the charges, arguing the case would violate parliamentary privilege and was an abuse of process.

A win would effectively end the prosecution against him.

Defence barrister Kylie Weston-Scheuber said Slipper conducted parliamentary business during a portion of the travel time.

Ms Weston-Scheuber told the court parliamentary business had a broad definition within the Parliamentary Privileges Act and was not confined to activities within the walls of the house.

The barrister said the court would be required to place a definition on parliamentary business in order to decide the guilt of her client.

Ms Weston-Scheuber said the prosecution was an abuse of process because the only way her client could defend the allegations would be to breach parliamentary privilege.

She argued it was for parliament, not the courts, to decide the definition of parliamentary business.

Ms Weston-Scheuber said allowing a court a set a definition would have broader ramifications and consequences for parliament.

“It is an area the courts cannot intrude,” she said.

“The only appropriate course of action is the prosecution be stayed.”

But Crown prosecutor, Tom Howe, QC, said it was not for the parliament to exercise an exclusive right over laws binding its members.

Mr Howe argued the parliament, in enacting Parliamentary Privileges Act and Parliamentary Entitlements Act, intended the courts to interpret the laws.

Mr Howe said parliamentarians could not expect everything they did or said to fall within the protective framework of parliamentary privilege.

He also argued it was impossible to say the case against Mr Slipper would inevitably breach that privilege if it went to trial.

Justice Burns will hand down his decision at a later date.