Mr Cull told the Otago Daily Times a proposal to rewrite the council's "cumbersome" standing orders was being considered, and work on that was likely to begin "sooner rather than later".
Standing orders governed the behaviour of the city's elected representatives, including councillors and members of the city's six community boards.
Mr Cull said the council planned to consider ways of making the complaints adjudication process more independent, including the possible creation of a completely independent panel of people with a legal background.
It would be their job to assess complaints alleging breaches of council standing orders levelled against elected members.
Mr Cull hoped the system, if introduced, would take the complaints process "out of the political arena altogether".
At present, Mr Cull assessed any complaint against an elected member, and decided whether to mediate a solution or refer it to the council's code of conduct hearings committee, of which he was also chairman.
That meant his role could "potentially politicise" any hearing involving another elected member, particularly a political rival, he said.
At the same time, the council had - in its submission on local government reforms - argued sanctions against errant councillors needed to be tougher.
At present, sanctions were set by legislation, but were limited to apologies, censures, temporary suspension of councillors from committees and dismissal from positions as chairman or deputy chairman of committees.
They could only be automatically removed from office if convicted of an offence carrying a penalty of two years' jail or more.
Mr Cull said the council wanted the Government to consider sanctions that were "a little tougher than a wet bus ticket".
"I honestly don't have anything serious in mind, but sanctions need to be meaningful or they're a joke."
Asked if he supported creating the power to permanently remove an elected councillor from office - as was already the case in Britain - Mr Cull said that would "depend on how serious" any bad behaviour was.
"That would be the ultimate sanction, in the absence of a death penalty, I suppose."
However, extra powers - if granted by the Government - would reinforce the need for an independent panel to adjudicate complaints, he believed.
"Especially when the sanctions are starting to become tougher, the last thing you want is another elected member passing judgement.
"It's just not tenable. I don't want to be in that position. It could be abused, so better to make it independent."
Mr Cull's comments came after it was confirmed this week he had mediated a resolution to a complaint against an unnamed community board member.
The board member apologised after being accused of criticising the council and its staff during a public lecture last month.
Mr Cull's comments also followed a string of accusations traded by councillors since the beginning of the present term.
However, Mr Cull said the focus was on lifting standards generally, and was not a response to any one case.
As part of that, the existing code of conduct needed to be rewritten to make it "plain and simple", he said.
"Then it's quite objective - if someone breaches it, the system that has been agreed deals with them."
He did not believe tough new rules would stifle leaks by whistle-blowing councillors that were genuinely in the public interest, as the council was already moving towards greater transparency.
"There are certain things that are confidential that, if they're leaked, they can really cause damage."
