Clarification Sought on the ‘+’ in Public Service Commission Workforce Material
As part of an international campaign, LGB International affiliates and associate organisations are asking public bodies, institutions and organisations to clarify who is included under the “+” in terms such as “LGBTQIA+”, and why those groups are placed alongside lesbians, gay men and bisexual people.
13 June 2026
Attn: Sir Brian Roche KNZM, Public Service Commissioner and Head of Service
CC / Please also refer to: Alex Chadwick, Deputy Chief Executive Workforce
Dear Sir Brian,
LGB Alliance NZ has been looking with interest at the Public Service Commission’s material on Rainbow public servants and the 2025 Public Service Census.
The 2025 Census questionnaire asks whether staff identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, takatāpui, gender diverse, intersex, queer, questioning, asexual, or as part of any other community captured under the umbrella terms “Rainbow, LGBTQIA+, MVPFAFF+ or SOGIESC”.
We are writing to ask what the Commission understands the “+” in those terms to represent.
Who is included under the “+” in LGBTQIA+ and MVPFAFF+? What characteristics do those groups share, and on what basis are they grouped with lesbians, gay men and bisexual people in public-sector workforce data and reporting?
LGB Alliance NZ is the working name of LGB Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand and is an Associate Member Organisation of LGB International. We exist to promote and defend the rights and interests of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people.
Our concern is not simply that the terminology is broad. Sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics and broad identity labels are different matters. Lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are same-sex attracted. A framework that treats gender identity as if it belongs in the same category as sexual orientation can obscure, and at times conflict with, the rights and interests of same-sex attracted people.
This is especially concerning where gender identity frameworks make it difficult, or even impermissible, to state clearly that homosexuality means same-sex attraction. Many lesbians, gay men and bisexual people regard that as homophobic in effect, because it undermines our ability to name our own sexual orientation accurately.
We would be grateful if the Commission could clarify:
1. What does the “+” in LGBTQIA+ mean in Public Service Commission material?
2. What does the ‘+’ in MVPFAFF+ represent in Commission material?
3. Which groups are included under “Rainbow, LGBTQIA+, MVPFAFF+ or SOGIESC” for Census and workforce reporting purposes?
4. What characteristics do those groups share with lesbians, gay men and bisexual people?
5. Does the Commission recognise that gender identity frameworks may conflict with the rights and interests of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people?
6. Has the Commission considered that some LGB public servants may not consent to being grouped under broader “Rainbow”, “LGBTQIA+”, “queer”, “MVPFAFF+” or gender identity frameworks?
7. Would the Commission consider reporting sexual orientation separately from gender identity, sex characteristics and other identity categories?
We support respectful treatment and fair employment practice for all people. But in public-sector data and diversity policy, precise language matters. If the Commission is grouping people together for statistical, policy or employment purposes, those groups should be named and defined.
We look forward to hearing from you.
LGB Alliance NZ