Session

In the age of AI, the question ‘What can translators and interpreters do?’ must be accompanied by a more pressing one: ‘How should they do their work?’ The latter is inextricably linked to professional ethics. Australia maintains a comparatively centralised T&I system, with professional ethics unified under the AUSIT Code of Ethics (2012), which foregrounds impartiality and clear role boundaries. While these principles are valuable in many contexts, their universal application raises a challenging question: if community interpreting is reduced to impartial meaning transfer within strict role boundaries, could machine interpreting tools provide ‘better’ practice than human interpreters? What, then, do human interpreters distinctively offer in community settings? This paper addresses these questions by drawing on the Japanese model of sōdantsūyaku (consultation interpreting), in which the interpreter functions as an empathetic mediator who actively supports the service recipient. This model contrasts sharply with Australia’s impartiality-centred approach. The paper first introduces the practice of consultation interpreting and its socio-cultural and policy context in Japan. It then compares the consultation interpreting code of ethics with the AUSIT code, followed by a discussion of the benefits and challenges of consultation interpreting and its potential adaptation in Australia. Rather than framing this as a model transfer, the analysis adopts a policy and system hybridisation perspective that accounts for the historical and cultural values shaping current and future multicultural communication support. Ultimately, this paper aims to open an inter- and cross-cultural dialogue on the ethics of human interpreting practice in an era of rapid AI development.