It is an accepted fact that accuracy and adequacy of communication are essential to achieve sound outcomes in the public service context. It is also accepted that, where it is necessary to employ interpreters, those interpreters should be properly trained, assessed and qualified for the purpose. What is still being debated is the role and responsibilities of the participants in the interpreted communication. Should the interpreter take on additional responsibilities to promote good outcomes and, if so, what? Should the public service providers take on additional responsibilities, and if so what? Should a third party be employed to mediate the cultural gaps? The purpose is this paper is to return to first principles and to reflect upon possible options. There are three main elements to be considered: what information has to be exchanged, who should be responsible for it and how should they discharge those responsibilities.