It’s not often you read the paper and see two stories involving interpreters in the first three pages.
In the first, we have an excellent example of a interpreter doing their civil duty (and, I would have thought, in accordance with the AUSIT code of ethics, although on reading, I see no mention of “reporting illegalities”), even when, as in this case, it was a claim against the police. The hardest accusations to make are against the police, for obvious reasons, but usually also the most necessary.
Unfortunately, in the second article, the Australian involved has behaved reprehensibly and the interpreter in question should be provided the support of, and a defense by, NAATI/AUSIT members (well, Interpreters and Translators everywhere really).
In fact, I would call on both of these organisations (and others) to make official complaints to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the minister in question, at the very least insist upon an official investigation, and if the story is confirmed, ask that the person in question be removed from international duty and the interpreter given appropriate compensation as requested.