Here's mine.

I make my submission as a consumer of maternity services in NSW, as a health care professional, as a husband, and as a father.
I have two beautiful daughters, both of whom have been born at home. On both of these occasions, we took responsibility for the arrangement of a privately employed midwife, and paid for her services.
It continues to astound me, as both a health professional and as a parent, that such services are not provided as part of the public health system. Research from around the world into the use of independently practicing midwives to manage pregnancy care, birth, and postnatal care in the home setting has consistently confirmed two outcomes – that home birth is as safe as hospital birth or safer for women who are appropriately screened, and that the rate of intervention is much lower. Other similar research has indicated that for women who have pregnancy care and give birth in the home setting, rates of satisfaction are higher than for similar women who have their pregnancy care and give birth in a hospital setting.
While I understand that the provision of maternity services is a politically fraught area, and I have read the Australia and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists statement concerning their refusal to endorse home birth as a "safe" option, even this organisation cannot deny the wide-ranging body of research that demonstrates the benefits of this model. Indeed, such a model of midwifery-led maternity services has been successfully implemented in New Zealand, where caesarean section rates are now much lower than our own country.
Consider also the cost of providing midwife-led and homebirth services, as opposed to allowing obstetric- and hospital-based management of maternity care for all women, irrespective of their risk factors. Independently practicing midwives currently charge between $3,000 and $4,000 for their services; this fee includes all prenatal, birth, and postnatal care and the provision of all necessary equipment. While I do not currently have access to accurate financial statistics pertaining to the cost of maternity services in the hospital setting, consider that a hospital stay, including interventions such as forceps extraction, continuous fetal monitoring, or a caesarean section, costs considerably more than the cost of a homebirth. Also consider that the number of women who require a caesarean section in the hospital system is around 30%; the number of women who require a caesarean section during an attempt to birth at home is around 2%. While some of this disparity can be explained by the more stringent screening procedures that apply to women who home birth, it is clear that even if the government were to fund or partially fund independently practicing midwives under Medicare, or alternatively introduce such services as part of the public maternity system, the result would be significant cost savings.
Home birth and midwife-led care for appropriately screened clients is safer, more satisfying for clients, and less expensive than obstetric- and hospital-managed birth. It is a disgraceful mark on our health care system that this form of care remains so inaccessible to the majority of women, in particular low-risk women living in rural areas who under the current system are often required to leave their homes and travel hundreds of kilometres only to be placed under obstetric (high risk) management. This situation needs to be addressed.