Please don't interrupt me. Thank you.
A precedent is not really being set. That was done in other cases. However, I think it is inherently problematic for the government to exempt itself from obligations it should fulfill, under an existing piece of legislation, by saying that the legislation had never existed.
It is one thing to use that technique to change tax provisions. However, I have serious issues with enabling the government to say that something is ultimately an offence, but then to decide that it will no longer be one. I am really bothered by this kind of a provision, especially under a rule of law where the government's powers must be somewhat limited.