A conservative activist and political commentator is vying to quash a decision to refuse his application for a Victorian parliament media pass, arguing he was denied procedural fairness.
Avi Yemini, the Australian bureau chief of Canadian-based far-right website Rebel News, is suing Legislative Council president Nazih Elasmar, Legislative Assembly Speaker Colin Brooks and Serjeant-At-Arms Paul Groenewegen over his exclusion as a member of the state's press gallery.
On Tuesday, Victoria's Supreme Court heard Yemini applied for media accreditation last March to allow him access to both houses of parliament, the building and its surrounds.
It was formally refused in July and no reasons were given.
The court was told Mr Groenewegen referred the application to Mr Brook's office for consideration, and he was aware Mr Yemini had been "escorted from the (parliamentary) precinct by Protective Services Officers" after an incident in February.
Mr Yemini had attended a press conference for Premier Daniel Andrews with a separate media accreditation issued by the federal Home Affairs department for foreign dignitary visits.
His barrister, Will Houghton QC, said the "new media" journalist immediately phoned a solicitor when informed of the PSO's intention to eject him.
"The officer said to the solicitor that he may disrupt the press conference, he's not been invited to the press conferences and the premier's PA (personal assistant) doesn't want him here," he said.
He was then ejected and banned from the precinct for seven days, before launching an application for media accreditation.
In a sworn affidavit, the Mr Groenewegen said he did not make the decision to refuse the application and it came after he was informed by the speaker's office that Mr Brooks had not approved it.
Mr Houghton said the identity of the decision-maker remains unknown, as does whether the serjeant's "damning description" of the incident influenced their ruling or if they even had the necessary delegation powers.
Further, he argued Mr Yemini was denied procedural fairness as he wasn't allowed to share his side of the story and the decision should subsequently be quashed.
However, Christopher Horan QC, representing the three parliamentary office-holders being sued, said the decision was not open to review.
He argued the court did not have jurisdiction to quash the decision on the basis of "exclusive cognisance", a constitutional principle granting parliament immunity from outside interference.
"There is a question that the court will have to decide about whether there is a privilege to exclude strangers as part of the control and management of the parliamentary precinct," Mr Horan said.
"Once the court has determined that question, there's really no question about whether it was necessary to exercise the privilege in relation to this application."
The hearing before Justice Tim Ginnane continues.
