Recent Cabinet decisions relating to funding for higher education and research suggest the Government is serious about its objective of raising knowledge standards and building a solid base for public and economic benefits from progress in science.
These are not easy decisions to make from a political perspective, since if they deliver hoped-for benefits they will do so only in the longer term.
There are few votes in such policies and it is to the Government's credit that it is not afraid to embrace long-term goals for the greater good.
Crown research institutes and the scientific community ought to be pleased that a better balance has at long last been recommended for the focus of research and the contestability for funding.
And taxpayers generally ought to be satisfied that the funding of tertiary education is to be at least partially subject to academic results.
The review of Crown research institutes (CRIs) has suggested a need for greater clarity of public good purposes and the abandonment of 90% contestability of funding, which placed far too much power in the hands of risk averse providers.
Scientific research when funding is limited is to a large extent subject to a guessing game of winners and losers, and with a model based on market economics, unrealistic expectations are likely of early gains.
Unsurprisingly, the review concluded the CRIs are funded wrongly, lack direction and are short-term focused because of their reliance on contracts.
The review suggested improvements by changing the existing funding and governance, which it said inhibits collaboration, positions natural partners such as universities and firms as competitors and interferes with CRIs adopting best practice research management.
Hence, the proposal for funding to be allocated directly from one provider on a long-term basis will likely prove to be far more productive to the scientific community and to the greater good of the country.
The Government should waste little time in implementing the recommendations.
Similarly, the proposal to penalise tertiary institutions by withdrawing a portion of funding for high rates of student course failures needs to be considered in a long-term context.
The Government's immediate objectives appear to be largely budget-focused, but the longer-term impacts deserve closer scrutiny.
For example, it has said it wants people to have "meaningful" qualifications, without specifying what these might be; the Clark government often talked about matching university courses with national needs, although it did little to meet this objective.
With some 6000 qualifications able to be achieved, it is no wonder the Government is determining whether all are necessary and whether there is duplication.
The new proposal is also effectively linked to the taxpayer-funded interest-free student loan scheme, since students would no longer get automatic access to continuing loans unless their grades showed adequate progress.
It is worthwhile to recall what the National Party's tertiary education election policy actually said: there would be clear funding signals and spending controls; providers of education and training would be "encouraged" to offer the courses the economy needs and that students want; the Tertiary Education Commission would have its functions streamlined; and the public would be informed of course completion and retention rates.
The risks associated with these moves ought to present few challenges to the Tertiary Education Commission.
Claims that staff will be pressured to ensure students pass and that tertiary institutions will offer less challenging courses are hardly realistic.
The Government is in effect offering financial incentives for institutions tied to the improving educational performance of their students, which suggests that institutions with an aspirational goal of excellence, such as Otago university, can only benefit.
The weakest area of the proposal, which has only been made public in outline form, is the perceived creation of more barriers to higher education for Maori and Pacific Island students, and for prospective second chance and mature students.
Nevertheless, although the proposals are intended to focus institutions more properly on student achievement, they should also be viewed as a further incentive to students and prospective students to make the very best of the privileged opportunity made available to them.
