It could have gone two ways for Mallard – either people decided Peters and King had got what they had asked for by going to the protest or it went awry.
The Prime Minister initially tried to keep herself as far away from those envelopes as possible, saying it was up completely up to the Speaker to deal with the aftermath of the protest. She had taken the same stand throughout the protests.
A few hours later - after Peters issued his press release - her tune changed.
She said she had spoken to Mallard and asked him to meet with MPs from all parties to try to come to an agreed position on how former MPs should be dealt with.
The meeting happened, and Mallard tweeted the outcome: they had considered whether former MPs should be exempted from the trespass orders and decided they should not.
He had snatched victory. He also let it be known that only the Act Party had favoured an exemption. What he didn't tweet - but probably thought - was that it was an odd stance for a party which has prided itself on a one-law-for-all stance.
That meeting should have been held sooner.
Ardern had quite rightly made it clear that when she had said it was the Speaker's responsibility, it was indeed his – and should not have been left to some poor soul in parliamentary security to decide who should and should not get trespass notices.
The question the PM posed was whether former MPs should be treated any differently from others who went to the protest and who are also presumably getting the same notices.
That is indeed a question. The answer to it should have been a simple yes.
Clearly the security managers Mallard delegated it to thought it was a yes, since they issued notices to all and sundry regardless of whether they had once been a deputy PM or not.
Peters' argument was also a simple yes - but not on the theory that former MPs should be trespassed. His reasoning was that anybody who was there peacefully should be left alone, and only those who got into criminal acts should be punished.
Former MPs are not sitting MPs, so are to all intents and purposes no different from Joe from Te Kuiti.
Those former MPs can hardly plead ignorance: the loudspeakers were booming out trespass warnings regularly throughout the protest period.
But the blanket issuing of the trespass notices paid no heed to the purpose of a visit.
King went along to be part of the protest himself, spoke at it and was there over several days. He was there as a spokesman for police and military opposing the mandates.
Peters visited once, briefly, and his purpose was to meet with the protesters and hear their point of view, not to protest himself. He did not do a speech and was there as the leader of a political party that hopes to get back into Parliament.
He then went to a nearby Vietnamese restaurant, Where's Charlie, for lunch.
If politicians are trying to be representatives of the people, surely listening to the views of people is part of that job?
Without wanting to tempt fate, media covering the protest have not been issued with trespass notices - presumably because they were doing their jobs and that required going into the protest area.
Peters could well argue the same. Peters had argued it was the MPs themselves who were not doing their jobs, because all MPs had refused to go out to talk to those people on the grounds.
Peters' plight put some current MPs into the situation of having to choose between their nemeses – did they side with Mallard or Peters on it?
Act leader David Seymour is not a fan of either, but Mallard is a nearer and present enemy. Seymour sided with Peters – describing Mallard as "petty" and "petulant". One of his concerns was that it would result in legal action, and cost the public even more.
National's Chris Bishop did not take a side so quickly – but did query what legal advice Mallard obtained before making his decision. He too, less diplomatically than the PM, questioned why Mallard had left it to security managers to decide on former MPs rather than taking responsibility for the issue himself.
It is easy to beat up on Mallard and some sympathy should be had for him.
The parliamentary protests were without a doubt the toughest thing he has had to deal with in his reign as Speaker - and those who caused the three weeks of trouble should be expected to face the consequences of that.
Mallard himself is yet to comment in full – perhaps he shelved it to security because he did not want to be accused of political motivations by making decisions on former MPs himself.
Perhaps he simply wanted to stay as removed from it as possible given the flak he is already facing for his decisions on sprinklers and Barry Manilow.
