Then we have areas of focus the victorious parties have identified, such as the environment and education, that have significant science inputs as well. As an enabler of change across the board, science could be put to use in very different ways in the coming years.
The ink isn't even dry on a coalition agreement, but in the meantime, here are five science-related areas that may see change with a Labour-New Zealand First coalition in charge.
1: Science funding
Labour campaigned on introducing a 12.5 per cent research & development (R&D) tax credit, which it considers a more efficient way to boost private sector innovation, which lags other small, developed nations.
It also wants to increase the public science spend "to link New Zealand to the OECD average over time".
New Zealand First for its part has a policy goal of increasing Government funding of science and R&D to 2 per cent of GDP over 10 years.
National had increased science spending during its nine years in power significantly, but the investment is still considered by many inadequate to stay internationally competitive and it has really struggled to get to its desired goal of having businesses spend 1 per cent of GDP on R&D.
More importantly, many in science disagree on National's prioritisation of spending. Likely to be in the spotlight is Callaghan Innovation, the government agency responsible for promoting innovation and dishing out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to businesses.
Will a new R&D tax credit scheme complement or replace this investment and will Callaghan's remit change?
Core funding of science could see a shake-up too. Currently this includes funding of the Crown research institutes, universities, science infrastructure and contestable funding that institutions compete for.
Some scientists see too much funding earmarked for specific, applied outcomes and argue that we need to shift the balance towards more fundamental research.
Labour and the Greens have talked about reducing organisational complexity in the science sector and lowering transaction costs.
That could signal consolidation of institutions and funding mechanisms, which might meet concerns of scientists and administrators alike that the system is too competitive.
Key questions: Will an R&D tax credit replace or complement the current level of business R&D grants? What will happen to Callaghan Innovation? How will core science funding change in Labour-New Zealand First's first term? Will the shape of the science system - CRIs, Centres of Research Excellence, National Science Challenges etc, fundamentally change?
2: Office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science advisor
The country's key high-level source of science-related advice comes via the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, who is currently Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the first person in the role, who has been in the job for around nine years and is scheduled to step down in the middle of next year.
He has arguably achieved a lot - contributed to important science policy discussions, helped co-ordinate scientific input during crises and establishing a network of chief science advisors in major government ministries.
Sir Peter has established international science diplomacy on a level never achieved in New Zealand before.
But some perceive the position, by design, to be too closely tied to the Prime Minister.
Labour and the Greens said before the election that they would rather see a science advisory capability that informs Parliament, much like the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
With Sir Peter stepping down, regardless of any changes in the position's structure, a new person will soon be in that important role and that could spell major change in focus and style.
Key questions: Will the office be revamped to report to Parliament? Who will the new Chief Science Advisor be and who will appoint the new advisor?
3: Freshwater quality
The state of our rivers and streams became a key election issue, with National's opposition hammering the government for doing too little to protect water quality and the infamous "swimmability" standards becoming a thorn in environment minister Nick Smith's side.
So expectations will be high that Labour and New Zealand First do something tangible to improve the situation.
So what did they suggest in the run-up to the election?
Labour has the bold plan of "restoring our rivers and lakes to a truly swimmable state within a generation".
That will involve putting the unemployed to work with fencing of waterways and riparian planting.
Then there's the contentious issue of a water tax to create royalty revenue that would then be channelled into efforts by local councils to remediate polluted waterways.
The Greens echo Labour's desire for a water tax on water bottlers sending mineral water offshore and have an extensive suite of freshwater initiatives that Labour may be inclined to adopt in some form.
New Zealand First was opposed to a water tax, the scrapping of which may have been a condition of giving its support to Labour.
It is on the same page on riparian planting but living up to its reputation of being friendly to the rural sector, doesn't seek significant measures against farmers.
As the party said prior to the election: "It is clear that urban sources of water pollution are as much in need of attention as rural and farming sources, if not more so."
New Zealand First has also indicated it wants a shake-up of the Resource Management Act "on the principle of one law for all", whatever that means.
There are few specific details from any of the parties on the role science will play in improving freshwater quality, but with ambitious plans for environmental improvements, evidence-based solutions will be in high demand.
Key questions: Will the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management survive in its current form - will the standards be toughened? What form will water taxes take and where will the revenue generated from them go? What changes are we likely to see to regulations around land use? How will Maori be recognised in relation to water?
4: Climate change
Labour has been big on ambition and small on detail when it comes to tackling climate change.
It plans to establish an independent Climate Commission and carbon budgeting with a view to shifting to a sustainable low-carbon economy.
It wants to apply the Emissions Trading Scheme to all sectors and all gases to move towards "low or zero-carbon options".
New Zealand First has a different set of priorities in mind in relation to climate change. It would ditch the ETS, replacing it with a UK-style Climate Change Act, introduce a Parliamentary Commissioner for Climate Change, which would assume legal responsibility for reporting against the Kyoto and Paris agreements.
It wants a "Carbon Budget" to be operative by 2021 and would channel money saved from buying emissions units ($1.4 billion a year according to New Zealand First) into research and development, and adapting to climate change.
The Greens are the most ambitious on climate change, wanting a net zero carbon economy by 2050 through a mix of using more renewable energy sources, levying agricultural emissions and pursuing low carbon transport options.
Key questions: What will happen to the ETS? Will climate-related R&D and science initiatives, such as the efforts to reduce emissions from agriculture, get a boost? What incentives and policies will be introduced to speed up adoption of renewable energy sources and cleaner transport?
5: Genetic modification
It is an issue that no political party really wants to tackle head-on and with the departure of National goes the closest thing to political will to speed adoption of GM technologies in New Zealand.
Labour is incredibly cautious on GM: "Labour will maintain the status quo of new GM techniques requiring Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) approval for use. Labour will also maintain the ability of councils to decide on economic grounds whether and where release and commercial use of GMO plants and animals is allowed.
"We'll also protect farmers who do not wish to adopt GM technology by ensuring the liability regime for use of GMOs that cause harm is strengthened."
So continuing tight control of GM research and commercial release on the cards there. New Zealand First is similarly wary of the technology - "proceed with caution, and only within the confines of suitably equipped laboratories, until such time as any modified organism has been proven to be safe for release".
The Greens are decidedly anti-GM - "our food and environment should be GE Free".
It sees GM-Free as a valuable marketing tool for New Zealand. There's only one area in which it sees GM as a potential option - "on predator free, the lines of research should remain open".
Key questions: Will the HSNO Act and Environmental Protection Authority regulations around use of GM be tightened? Will GM have any input into the Government's Pest Free 2050 goal? Will laws change to tighten liability about use of GMOs that "cause harm"?
• This article was originally published on Sciblogs.co.nz
