Opened the debate
Keogh argued that the tribunal required modernisation to remain fit for purpose after more than a decade of operation. Keogh stated that the bill would update the time periods for reviewable decisions, limiting them to applications made within 20 years of an operation ending, except for length of service awards which remain reviewable until the member turns 100. Keogh explained that the amendments would restrict who can seek a review to individuals with a clear interest, such as family members or eyewitnesses, to prevent applications by unrelated academics or historians. Keogh noted that the bill introduces a six-month time limit for seeking a review after a refusal decision and removes the ability for the tribunal to refer decisions back to Defence. Keogh emphasised that these changes protect the integrity of the honours system by ensuring reviews are based on objective evidence and living witnesses.