Speaker Joan Armstrong said she understood councillors were given 15 minutes to read the report before voting on it.

“It flies in the face of the Office of Local Government model code,” she said.

Ms Armstrong said the report was “an instrument to shut down public consultation”.

Jonathan Mobbs said he had submitted an A4-size document to council the day before a meeting, and had received a letter from the mayor saying he had given councillors inadequate time to consider the information.

“However, in March, (the council) could read and absorb 15 pages in 15 minutes,” he said.

“The behaviour shown recently is not right, and not good process, although it may be tactically clever.”

Mr Mobbs said he was also a signatory to the “class action code of conduct” complaint to the Office of Local Government.

Lei Parker said the mayoral report was routine, not urgent, and councillors were not given time to consider it.

“I and 32 others have raised a class action code of conduct against the mayor regarding the mayoral minutes,” he said.

Cr Innes hit back, saying she had used the minutes appropriately – and that the class action signatories held a double standard.

“It has been obvious that one of the councillors shared what transpired up to the presentation of the mayoral minutes,” she said.

“It is unfortunate that not everything has been communicated to you.

“Are you aware that leading up to councillors making a decision we have a number of meetings, and councillors are absolutely given the opportunity to ask questions of anyone they see fit?

“I absolutely disagree with you that councillors had a lack of time.

“That is my opinion and I am entitled to it – as I am entitled to submit a mayoral report.

“I look forward to seeing the details (of the code of conduct complaint).

“You hold us to a standard of openness and transparency, but the signatories (of the complaint) are to remain anonymous.

“In my opinion, that is a double standard.”