A court has found former Speaker Trevor Mallard trespassing New Zealand First leader Winston Peters from Parliament was unreasonable and irrational.

It was after Peters visited the anti-mandate occupation in May.

Mallard quickly withdrew the trespass orders, which included not only Peters, but former ACT leader Rodney Hide, former Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox and NZ First List MP Darroch Ball.

The court ruling comes mere hours before Mallard is due to make his farewell valedictory speech to Parliament this afternoon.

Peters, who took court action against Mallard claiming the trespass order issued earlier this year was unjustified and a direct attack on every New Zealander's freedoms, has said he did not believe Mallard had the diplomatic judgement required to be an ambassador.

"Mr Mallard has never demonstrated any understanding of the most fundamental elements of diplomacy itself, and it's important."

He claimed Mallard had accused him of being a "terrorist" in documents related to the trespass notice on May 4.

Winston Peters at the Parliamentary protest earlier this year. Photo / file

Asked whether Mallard had in fact used the word "terrorist", Peters said: "Well that's what it means; these people are dangerous, they're capable of causing violence, it's all there if you look at the document he put out on the 4th of May, and then later on when he's in trouble he pulled it down."

Peters said he should never have been trespassed from Parliament after meeting with protesters in February.

In the Wellington High Court ruling released today, Justice Cheryl Gwyn says Mallard accepts that the warning was an unjustified limitation on Peters' right to freedom of movement.

Peters said the ruling "highlights the unjustified contempt with which all parliamentarians treated those peaceful protesters who were there rightfully, and just wanted to be heard".

"Failure to talk to those peaceful protesters early and hear them out, a process that has happened countless times over decades at parliament, led to a serious deterioration of lawlessness by some – who were never intending to peacefully protest in the first place.

"I brought this action against the Speaker on behalf of all of those legitimate protesters, who likewise were exposed to the unreasonable and irrational behaviour of the Speaker and subsequently had their right to freedom of movement taken away.

"How much has the Speaker's behaviour cost the taxpayer?"