Sussan Ley opens up on final moments with her mum before she died after watching her daughter become the first woman to become Liberal leader

Sussan Ley has shared how she spent her final moments with her mother, who passed days after she made history as the Liberal Party's first female leader.
Angela Braybrooks, 93, spent her last days in palliative care and surrounded by family before passing on Saturday.
Following her election to Opposition Leader on Tuesday, Ley rushed to the hospital in Albury, on the NSW and Victorian border, to be with her mother.
'When I got home, her eyes sort of lit up when she saw me,' Ley told the Sunday Telegraph.
Ley was born in Nigeria as a British citizen and spent her early years in the Middle East where her father worked in military intelligence.
While most wives at the time stuck to their traditional roles as home makers, Ley recalled her mother constantly at work.
Ms Braybrooks ran a daycare, opened a library in their house and trained as a nurse when their family settled in Australia.
Ley proudly calls her mother her role model and told her such in their last moments together.
'I held her hand, I talked to her about life and things we've been through together, and I hope she hears,' Ley said.
'It's a good opportunity to reflect on all things that she did in her life, because my mum was a bit of a trailblazer.'
The Opposition Leader shared news of her mother's passing in an emotional Instagram post on Saturday.
'In the very early hours of this morning, my mother, Angela Braybrooks, passed away here in Albury,' Ley wrote.
'My family and I feel this loss deeply.
'We express our deep appreciation to the staff at Riverwood Aged Care facility for the quality care provided to Angela. In her final moments, she was comfortable and at peace.
'Mum was a mental health nurse who helped so many people through her life. She taught me the values of resilience, self-reliance and persistence.'
Ley said when Ms Braybrooks grew up in wartime Britain she 'could never have dreamed that her daughter would become Australia's first female Leader of the Opposition, but because of her, that happened this week'.
She said on Monday night a priest had urged her mother to 'hang on' so she could see one more special moment in her daughter's life, promising her, 'we'll have champagne tomorrow'.
'On Tuesday, hours after I was afforded the enormous privilege by my Liberal colleagues of leading our party, I drove back down the Hume Highway to be at her bedside,' Ley said.
'Whilst mum was no longer verbal, she watched every moment of my press conference. As I walked back into her room that afternoon, her eyes lit up with excitement. It was a moment I will treasure, forever.'
On Tuesday, Ley won a 29-25 vote against Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor to replace Peter Dutton.
Shadow Energy Minister Ted O'Brien was elected as deputy leader, with Jacinta Nampijinpa Price - who was aligned with Mr Taylor - dropping out of the contest shortly before the poll.
Ley, 63, is one of the Liberal Party's most-experienced hands, having served as a Cabinet minister under the Coalition's past three prime ministers - Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison.
A former commercial pilot, farmer and public servant, she has held the rural seat of Farrer in NSW's south-west since the retirement of her long-serving predecessor and former National Party leader and deputy prime minister Tim Fischer.
Ley famously changed the spelling of her first name from 'Susan' to 'Sussan' in her 20s after exploring numerology. She believed that adding an extra 's' would make her life 'incredibly exciting' and ensure 'nothing would ever be boring'.
Ley is a mother-of-three and had the support of the party's moderates, with some believing a woman at the helm will help win back female voters.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

2 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG

The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.

Telegraph

8 hours ago

• Telegraph

If assisted dying passes, for the first time the state can kill

After MPs voted to legalise assisted dying, a deathly silence fell over the Commons. No cheers. No jubilation. 'My God,' they must have been thinking, 'what have we done?' It was a hot, hot day: some MPs wore shirt-sleeves, confirming a suspicion that the British have forgotten how to dress for funerals. The Bill's majority was just 23 – impressively close given the Labour landslide – and followed a debate that was Parliament at its best, worst and thickest. Worst was Kim Leadbeater, the mumsy campaigner for assisted dying, who thought it appropriate to open with a little joke: death and taxes, she simpered, are the two things we can't avoid. Ha, ha. Ho, ho. Truly she is the face of 'sinister twee'; deflecting questions with a nod and a smile, whimsying her way through a Bill that literally kills with kindness. Why do palliative care organisations oppose said legislation, asked Richard Burgon? 'They have different opinions,' she said: and in the medical profession v Kim, there is apparently no contest. Lib Dem Wera Hobhouse complained that some people say MPs are too stupid to vote on this question. Her colleague Luke Taylor insisted the Bill changes nothing, which is very stupid indeed, and referred to his constituents as 'residents' – the language of a parish councillor. There was a sense of men and women operating beyond their pay grades, trembling less through emotion than nerves, dropping clangers that betrayed shallowness. Josh Babarinde said 'self-coercion' – persuading yourself that you need to die – 'is a choice.' As is climbing into the lion cage at the zoo, my dear, yet society cautions against it. Supporters trumpeted their faith in agency and officialdom: the death panels will work, said one low-watt MP, because they will contain social workers. Let us pray they're not officials of the calibre who failed to spot the abuse of Sara Sharif. Diane Abbott, a shrewd opponent, noted that those 'talking about panels presumably have not had much to do with them' – arguing that the vulnerable can easily be bamboozled into acting against their interests. Social and health care are too underfunded to allow any real choice, said a few. Chi Onwurah ridiculed the 'assumption that those who have been most unequal in life will become equal in death'. Jen Craft explained why disabled activists are so worried: 'When I was given the diagnosis of my daughter's Down's Syndrome, the next thing the midwife said to me, after 'sorry', was 'I can book you a termination within 48 hours.'' A Tory veterinarian broke the news that, actually, euthanising pets can go horribly wrong. Sarah Owen argued that health professionals should've taken the lead in drafting. James Cleverly did his normal bloke act, insisting that he's opposed despite seeing a friend die horribly and despite being an atheist – unintentionally reinforcing the widespread idea that religious people approach this matter with wide-eyed, Jesus-freak naivete. On the contrary, the speeches by religious dissenters tended to make the most sense. Opponents often said they were sympathetic in principle to assisted dying but saw fault with this particular Bill – yet this was intellectually unconvincing. The perfect Bill cannot be drafted; every practical objection demonstrates a conceptual flaw, a reason why it's such a risk to proceed. A failed amendment to outlaw people taking their lives because they feel a burden would have undermined agency; excessive oversight might add delays; restrictions on promotion of assisted dying reduce scope for informed choice. In short, the real, underlying principle is whether or not the state can kill. What happened on June 20, 2025 is that Parliament voted to hand the authorities the power to do just that. This is not to say that in some cases it won't reduce suffering – but where do we go from here? Who next? Isn't it odd that in an age of woke, which insists society is elitist, racist, sexist and ableist, a Parliament with a vast socialist majority ignored the poor, people of colour, abused women and the disabled? That said, the Kim Leadbeater assisted dying Bill would not have passed without the support of 20 Tory MPs, including Chris Philp and Mel Stride, not random backbenchers but the very front bench of a party that clings to the label 'Conservative' as unconvincingly as China is communist. My own MP, Laura Trott, voted this week to decriminalise abortion and help the old to die. At the next election, I shall not be voting for her.

The Guardian

11 hours ago

• The Guardian

Labor eyes ambitious tax reform but it must be ready for vicious backlash from vested interests

There was a hint of frustration in Anthony Albanese's voice when he spoke to the Canberra press gallery for the first time after Labor's thumping election victory on 3 May. In the prime minister's courtyard at Parliament House, he was asked if he planned to use his soaring political capital for major reforms of the tax or superannuation systems. Badly needed, and often talked about in the abstract, this kind of action had waited for a long time for the necessary political ambition. Albanese said he wouldn't get ahead of himself in the opening weeks of his second term in power. He insisted Labor had already been bold, delivering on its promises in the first three years. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Fast forward to Wednesday, while the PM was pressing the diplomatic flesh at the G7 summit in Canada, the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, showed the first signs of that reform ambition. In a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra, Chalmers signalled Labor was willing to consider changes to the tax system at the looming productivity summit in August, recognition that fixing longstanding problems was needed to right the budget's structural deficit. The speech was an implicit recognition that Labor's tax changes in the first term barely touched the edges of deeper structural problems in Australia's tax system. Chalmers, a student of economic reformer Paul Keating, said any progress on productivity or budget sustainability would be impossible without proper consideration of tax reform, a challenge he conceded would be 'hard and contested' with benefits that were not always immediate. Even someone with a passing interest in federal politics should know the scale of the problem is vast: some $1tn in government debt and soaring spending, held up by a system overly reliant on income tax from an ageing population – a problem that will only get worse due to the ageing population. For years Chalmers has been eager to point out the five main pressures on the budget are not going to get any easier without proper attention. Spending on health, aged care, the national disability insurance scheme, defence and interest from government debt will keep treasurers and finance ministers up at night for years to come. The government's revenue base is being eroded from declining fuel and tobacco excises, and in the long term will take a hit from lower tax receipts from fossil fuel extraction. The early stages of Labor's plans seem to include lower income taxes, but no changes to the 25-year-old GST. Chalmers is upfront, saying tax overall needs to rise. Whether it is indeed possible to meaningfully lower income taxes without broadening or raising the GST is unclear. Economists argue taxing consumption through mechanisms such as the GST is efficient, while taxing incomes isn't. Parliamentary Budget Office figures show the GST causes about 8 cents in economic loss for each dollar gained, compared with 24 cents for income tax or 40 cents for corporate tax. Two major pieces of work should be the starting point, acknowledging that any change which makes it into law will inevitably create some winners and some losers. Chalmers was working for then treasurer Wayne Swan when Ken Henry handed his landmark tax review to the Rudd government in late 2009. Both men marked up copies of the document over the course of the summer, leaving them to 'disgorge' sand from the beach by the time they made it back to Canberra. Many of the review's 138 recommendations never saw the light of day. Today, the former Treasury secretary says, the system is in even worse shape. Henry has called for wholesale reform, including increasing the GST to pay for company and personal income tax cuts, as well as comprehensive road user charging, replacing stamp duties, increasing taxes on super profits from the mining sector, an economy-wide price on carbon and changes to fringe benefits and superannuation taxes. Henry's review is best remembered for recommending the mining tax, an idea which prompted a furious campaign of resistance against the government. Chalmers has acknowledged the politics of the review were mishandled, that it was kept secret too long before ultimately crashing into Labor's leadership wars. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion The second substantive report with proposals ready to go is the white paper released by teal independent Allegra Spender in the last term of parliament. In a different political reality, Spender would be part of the Liberal party's economic team, and her significant work comes with buy-in from Henry and other leading tax voices including Robert Breunig from the Australian National University's Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, and Robert Carling from the Centre for Independent Studies. Chalmers assigned a staffer to monitor the white paper process, at a time when Spender was one of the few MPs actually prepared to talk about meaningful tax reform. The Wentworth MP wants the coming reform push to look at business investment and corporate taxes, the under-performing petroleum resource rent tax, road user charging, indexation of income brackets, unhelpful state taxes and the GST. Spender has more guts than either of the major parties in one specific area as well. She has called for a review of Western Australia's insanely generous GST deal, which respected economist Saul Eslake calls the worst public policy decision of the 21st century. WA's state Labor government handed down a budget with a $2.5bn surplus this week, but taxpayers from every other state are paying $54bn to the state due to perceived unfairness in the grants commission process. This special treatment agreed by then treasurer Scott Morrison and locked in by Anthony Albanese to maintain Labor's political stocks in the West will see the nation's richest state receive an extra $21.1bn from federal taxpayers over the next four years alone. Family trusts, the legal tax structures used by millions of Australians to lower their tax liabilities, also look likely to come under increased scrutiny as part of the latest reform push. Chalmers and Albanese will convene their productivity summit in the cabinet room on 19 August. If they want their record to be considered alongside the Hawke-Keating and Howard-Costello governments, the political conditions could hardly be better. Labor must prepare itself for the predictable backlash from vested interests unwilling to countenance changes to cushy arrangements and handy loopholes. Only a serious government prepared to expend political capital will be able to make the system fairer and fit for a 21st century country facing major demographic and economic challenges. If Labor really has the ambition Anthony Albanese insists it does, meaningful tax reform might become the make-or-break test of the government's second term.