"It seems to me that this is the first necessary step towards working out what should be put in place of private bank generated money, to decide whether the Reserve Bank should create all our money (it creates 3% at present), or whether something more radical should be suggested.
My wording has been chosen to make possible a straight "Yes", if you agree that the private banks should not create money or "No" if you think they should have that power, or dont believe they create money any how.
In their submissions people are quite welcome to suggest what ought to replace private bank created money. Such comments will be useful if this proposal goes to an incubator session, but please keep such comments simple because they are not relevant to the actual vote.
Also, I hope that voters will vote "Yes" or "No". The proposal has been phrased to make that possible. I dont see the point in either an "Abstain" or "Block" vote.

As background I have outlined below the present system and its faults:-
The Current System
Nearly all the existing money supply is created or controlled by the Private Banks. Physical money (notes and coinage) is created by the Reserve Bank. It amounts to only 3% of the total money supply. Most of the remaining 97% is created by the commercial banks and exists only in electronic form on their computers. A relatively small amount of money is created by the Reserve Bank as reserves to settle imbalances between commercial banks. This money remains within the banking system.
Most of banks' profits come from loans to, and deposits by, customers. Deposits become legally the property of the bank to use as it will regardless of what type of Account they are put into. The money shown on your Bank Statement is not necessarily securely held by the bank and in any case is at risk if the Bank fails. In practice a portion of deposits is held as security against a run on the bank or against bad debts.
Loans are not made by taking money from a saver and transferring it to a borrower as is widely assumed. Whenever a loan is made by a bank and that amount has been place into the borrowers bank account, money has been created from thin air, at no cost to the bank, as interest bearing debt. This fact is confirmed by the Bank of England in its Spring 2014 Bulletin.
In practice the banks can lend as much as they choose. The only limits to loan creation are:- market demand, the amount of reserves withheld, and the banks willingness to take a risk. Virtually all money now in existence began as loans created in this way, as debt, and therefore cannot be erased without reducing total money supply, or by loan defaults, which leads to recessions. The creation of new money at interest, without any goods having been created, leads to devaluation of the dollar. All such loans are therefore inflationary.
When loans are repaid the money is erased. It does not stay in the money supply as people assume. The interest on the loan must also be repaid which places extra pressure on the money supply. That requires an injection of money, which can only be obtained by new loans, with interest. There is clearly no end to that dilemma. Debt grows exponentially and cannot be repaid.
At present NZ banks will be allowed to fail. If an examination of books shows that a bank can survive by freezing a portion (up to about 20%) of depositors’ funds, that will occur. Otherwise the bank will be liquidated and creditors will be paid out according to their priority, of which depositors rank last.
Clearly the present system is deeply flawed.

I agree, Denis that the present system needs modernising. Exactly how this eventuates is a very interesting topic, which has been a rich and diverse conversation on this site. However you are right, the first question needs to be asked. That is do we continue the present system? It is a no-brainer to me why we should remove the privilege from banks of creating money they don't have and charging us interest on it. The interest we pay comes from hard earned money from the real economy. We we always need more to pay yesterdays's loans - which is why it is unsustainable. Also, this is why wealth is continually being transferred from our economy and resources and shipped off to the overseas shareholders. To be honest, once the system is seen for what it is - it is obvious it is insane.

Two very relevant papers to this discussion, are the Bank of England, and the IMF discussing money creation.

Bank of England publication: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2014/051.aspx

IMF paper: The Chicago Plan revisited: homefile:///Users/amandavickers/Downloads/120801_IMF_report_The_Chicago_Plan%20(5).pdf

seems to be a bit of a no brainer really

I have in my mind an approach that I address to every politician I encounter and its about principled decision making, i.e. a process where we refer all decisions to a fundamental principled position

the defining question I put to them is whether they believe that macroeconomic design decisions should be based on a philosophy that; economies should be designed to serve the masses or economies should be designed where masses exist as servants to the economy

this is the fundamental principle that the party should first determine before moving onto to the micro economic issues, AKA the guiding light

You all miss the point that the interest rate is NOT! Removed from the money supply. So: if you repay your debt of 100000 by 12% banks get 112000 and 12000 will NOT be deleted. The banks just reinvest them into the economy and somebody gets them as payment for their products.

The fact that this creates a concentration of money and power to decide over it in the banking sector could be seen as problem.

The fact that as population grows the money supply has to increase or deflate but the opposite is true because they don't add money to our economy but just temporarily add it creates the problem of scarcity of money without taking debt or taking the money from someone who also needs it. So new generations or entrepreneurs who add new products to our society (thus add a new supply and demand which needs to be carried by the already existing money) make the money scarce and this makes it necessary to let the money flow faster.

(because the same (for example)100 trillion dollars must be used to pay more products and to pay more people than before)(thus the prices must get lower (Deflation) or more money must be created or the money must flow faster)

There are problems due to the whole monetary system but it's bot directly the creation or interests which make it problematic.

I'm not sure that I follow this. You appear to be saying that as population and production increases there is a need for more money in the economy, but why is that a problem? If the private banks could not create electronic money as loans with interest and the Reserve Bank created the appropriate amount of money and spent it into the economy (as notes and coins already are), there would be no dollar devaluation. This is surely the ideal solution.
The present dollar devaluation is one of the side effects of interest being added to all new money creation. If the banks created money interest free that would probably work up to a point, but why would they do that since their profit derives almost totally from interest.

*from @terangikaiwhiriake thread; @dennisdorney
Instead of trying to overhaul a draconian banking system perhaps the discussion should be about alternative local currencies that is reflective of any given region.

I don’t see any positive outcome using the private banking cartel to trade between ourselves and to fund local projects. In the US hundreds of alternative currencies are being used successfully.

Perhaps a peer-peer-cpytro/hard currency combination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_currency