The full response may be downloaded here. The offence would specify material that is :
- Pornographic
- Explicit
- Real or appears to be real act
and also either
- Serious Violence - that 'appears to be life threatening, or likely to result in serious, disabling injury
- intercourse or oral sex with an animal
- Sexual interference with a human corpse
On the surface, this appears entirely reasonable. However, the danger arises that the definition of injury could be widened and other somewhat unreasonable incidents such as the 'Spanner' case could cause problems to safe, consensual bdsm participants.
If you think this would cause you problems, or otherwise object to it, I suggest visiting Backlash and complaining to get the proposal clarified.