The Muldoon Government introduced more than 30 farm subsidies, including minimum prices, fertiliser subsidies, low-interest loans, tax incentives and debt write-offs.
Muldoon argued that farm support was a "targeted devaluation", allowing him to keep the value of the dollar high.
By the time my parents bought their King Country dairy farm in 1982, these subsidies had been priced into farm values.
Within months of the 1984 election, the subsidies were gone. Often there was little warning: cuts that were announced one day took effect the next.
It was a terrible shock. There was no consultation. And certainly no working with industry to co-create a solution like the He Waka Eke Noa plan.
The value of many farms – including ours – halved overnight.
At the same time, mortgage interest spiked to 20 per cent, with overdraft rates closer to 30 per cent. Banks stopped lending to many farmers, making farm improvements impossible.
Our family got through, just, saved in part by stable fresh milk prices. But it was too much for some, especially sheep and beef farmers. Hundreds were forced to sell. Others suffered in silence from depression. Some killed themselves in despair.
With hindsight, few argue that the high dollar, high subsidy model should have been retained. Farming is better off now.
But the appalling way the cuts were implemented caused unnecessary suffering.
That experience partly explains why it has taken 20 years of proposal, counter-proposal and protest to get to this point. We now have a firm plan to reduce emissions that is also pretty fair to farmers.
One indication that the Government is on the right track is the fact both farm lobby groups and environmental advocates are unsatisfied.
The plan involves a bit of stick, upsetting the farm lobby; and a lot of carrot, upsetting the environmental lobby.
Farmers will have to pay for every kilo of methane from 2025, but will be paid generously for every kilo they reduce. Nitrogen will be treated separately.
While some of the reaction has been ridiculously hyperbolic, no one can complain that they didn't see this coming.
From the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, through the Copenhagen and Paris climate conferences, to the "fart" tax debates of the 2000s, this proposal has been elephantine in its gestation.
The final plan is also very close to what National themselves supported until very recently. That is why it was disappointing to see National rush to tell everyone what a "shocker" the plan was.
Given how important certainty is to farmers, they deserve to be told what National will do instead to meet our international climate agreements.
As it stands, National's plan to price farm emissions is all a bit murky. They say they will align with whatever the industry wants. But the farming sector itself cannot agree. And given the various factions and informal groupings of Groundswell and Federated Farmers, it is doubtful they ever will.
The confusion and lack of consensus will annoy the large number of farmers who are committed to environmental responsibility. I know farmers who don't want to be cast as climate change ostriches and find the behaviour of Federated Farmers and, in particular, Groundswell a bit embarrassing.
By contrast, while farmers might not like Labour's proposal, they will recognise that in order to deal with climate change, eventually some political courage is required.
Andrew Kirton was Labour's General Secretary from 2016-2018. He now works in government relations for transtasman firm Anacta Consulting. He is married to a Labour MP.
