Won't get through anyway. First of all, the definition is unusable (I guess they think it's defining enough, as they haven't played any "killergames", but the truth is that definition says almost nothing at all. Is Mario depicting killings realistic enough to be banned? Probably not, right? Enemies don't look too human either, except if you count the Mario VS Luigi gamemodes in some games. What about Conker then? Brutal as heck, but you don't kill humans. What about Quake 3? Sure, some characters are humanoid, but are they gibbed realistically enough for the game to be banned?) so even if the majority in the parliament were dopey enough to fly with it (and I doubt it is, it's just that you only hear about the dopes in the media) they would have trouble working with this popularistic knee-jerk nonsense.
Politicians often act like there were no laws in place as of now and every kid could legally get a brutal murder-simulator. That's crap and most politicians know that. The laws are already there. The USK is in place and it's very strict on violence when compared to other countries' equivalent organizations. Truth is, what they want is basically already in the laws except "killergames", as they naively put it, aren't banned but restricted to an adult audience. That's all that can be done anyway.
If kids still get their grubby hands on such games it's not because the laws aren't strict enough, but because they aren't enforced strictly enough (maybe because they are not enforcable!). The same problems would persist with stricter laws. Most politicians know that too, which is why that proposition is going to fail, like all the ones before it.
There have been so many plans of politicians, organizations and people to get such a law in place and it always makes the news on a few gaming sites, but the truth is, just because they plan stuff doesn't mean they are close to implementing it. So don't worry just yet...