I definitely do not believe we should ever remove the two-beer defence whatsoever. Under no circumstances, in my view, should we ever say to an accused person that because of the fact that they might come and lie, we're going to deem their evidence to be inadmissible. Trials are quite inconvenient, so we could do that with any crime.
We could simply say that for the person who pleads not guilty when they're charged with murder and says they killed in self-defence. The person they killed is often the only witness. If the accused person says they acted in self-defence, often it's very hard to refute the lie that this person might be telling in terms of it being self-defence, but obviously we can see how unfair it would be to deem that evidence that you're acting in self-defence inadmissible.
It's the same thing to say the fact that you say you had nothing to drink or very little to drink should be inadmissible. That is not where we should be going.
Certainly, I concur that we should be constantly updating our breath technology. the Intoxilyzer 5000 has gone through many series and modifications and improvements. But it's not for me to suggest how much money we spend on updating the technology. Whether we're dealing with helicopters or Tudor jets or icebreakers, all kinds of technology are advancing.
But the Intoxilyzer 5000C is twenty-some years old. It's quarter-of-a-century-old technology. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad technology, but even in the latest technology there are about 115 breath testing devices that are presently on the market. Some of them are much better, but they're still not foolproof. Even new cars don't always start.