No code of conduct complaints were made between councillors or between councillors and senior Council staff in 2011 or 2012, and only one in 2013. However The Queanbeyan Age reported last week on nine allegations lodged so far this year.

The allegations cost ratepayers over $21,000 to investigate despite seven of them being found to have no substance after investigation, and another one deemed minor enough by councillors that no further action be taken.

Sue Jarvis- who served 13 years on Council benches between 1995 and 2008- said the current period on Council risked a return to the days of 2001, a bitter period of Council history that saw her ejected from chambers and escorted out by police on a conduct allegation that took a Supreme Court injunction to resolve. She said although the transparency surrounding conduct complaints had improved somewhat since her time on Council, the process still needed further review.

Mr Stavreas- a councillor between 2004 and 2012- helped support Mrs Jarvis during her prolonged fight against the complaint. He called on the Department of Local Government to add further "checks and balances" to the complaints process.

"It would be fair to say that Sue and myself stood against the behaviour that's currently in place when we were in council, because we could see the detrimental effect on both the councillors affected and their ability to serve the community," he said.

"It's got to the point today where politics, from local to national, has become a combative zone focused on point scoring rather than an arena for debate. So it gets to be very personal…forgetting the second part of their [Councillors] purpose is to serve the public.

"This is where we are at the moment, it's almost deja vu of the bad old times," he said.

Both Mrs Jarvis and Mr Stavreas said there was a need for further review of the complaints process by the Department, including greater recourse for the accused if repeated complaints were found to lack substance.

"I think it needs to be looked at by the parliament," Mr Stavreas said. "I think there needs to be an onus of substance on the accuser.

"If it's a frivolous and vexatious [complaint] and it causes the accused to spend time and money to defend themselves, then I think there needs to be recourse back on the accuser," he said.