Lawyers for former Speaker Peter Slipper say his conviction for dishonestly using taxpayer-funded taxi vouchers to visit wineries should be quashed because it's not clear what constitutes parliamentary business.
Mr Slipper was not present for his appeal hearing at the ACT Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon.
The former Queensland MP has admitted using his government travel entitlements to visit the vineyards outside Canberra on three separate occasions in 2010 but always denied he acted dishonestly.
In September, he was placed on a two-year good behaviour bond, ordered to serve 300 hours community service and repay $954 to the Commonwealth.
Mr Slipper's barrister Kylie Weston-Scheuber told the hearing prosecutors had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no parliamentary business had occurred on the trips.
There also uncertainty over the term "parliamentary business" within government departments and the parliamentary community.
She referred to media reports about Prime Minister Tony Abbott claiming travel to a Queensland wedding and Liberal MP Don Randall claiming flights related to buying an investment property.
The Finance Department had been unable to provide advice to those MPs on whether that fell within MPs entitlements and had left the decision up to them.
Justice John Burns said he struggled to see how that was relevant to the case.
The court was told Mr Slipper had travelled with his staffers and there was no evidence about what he did or discussed at the destinations.
The drivers had waited in the car.
One had given evidence during the trial that he'd overheard parliamentary business being discussed during the journey.
Ms Weston-Scheuber said the ACT chief magistrate had drawn inferences of dishonesty she was not entitled to make.
Mr Slipper had used the term "suburbs" to describe the destinations when filling out the cab vouchers.
Ms Weston-Scheuber said it was not open for the chief magistrate to find the use of that term "disingenuous or implausible".
The magistrate also had not considered other hypotheses such as that Mr Slipper had made an error or that he was lax and non-specific or had seen other drivers use the term "suburbs".
The hearing before Justice Burns continues on Thursday.
Share
