The second day of an appeal against a code of conduct panel finding against former councillor Elise Chapman has heard there was no difference between tweets sent in her capacity as councillor and as a private citizen.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is reviewing the panel’s finding that Ms Chapman breached the code during her time in local government by tweeting an image of children with mutilated genitals to a member of the public.

Barrister for the City of Greater Bendigo, Eddy Gisonda, said dialogue with members of the public was a critical factor in a councillor’s role and Twitter gave “everyone with an internet connection” an opportunity to participate in that discourse.

He said Ms Chapman’s assertion she sent the tweet from “the privacy of her lounge room” was a misunderstanding of the nature of the social media platform.

“Ms Chapman isn’t just in her lounge room, she’s in the lounge room of everyone else on Twitter,” he said.

Mr Gisonda said Ms Chapman set up her account shortly after being elected and had been using the title of councillor in her profile prior to sending the offending tweet in early 2015.

As evidence of the public nature of Ms Chapman’s Twitter account at the time, Mr Gisonda cited communications between she and members of the public about council issues, including around the time of the June 2014 council meeting in which councillors voted to approve the city’s first mosque.

Mr Gisonda said Ms Chapman turned that debate “into a broader one about Islam” and could not “pick and choose when it is public and when it is not public”.

“One can’t get interaction that’s any more central to council business,” he said. “Once she’s in the public arena, she is stuck there.”

Current councillor James Williams told the hearing knowledge of a disclaimer on Ms Chapman’s Twitter profile indicating her views were her own and not those of the council would not have changed his decision to refer the matter to the panel “in any way”.

While being questioned by Julian Fidge, representing Ms Chapman, Cr Williams said his former colleague had made it clear she did not wish to participate in a process to resolve the issue at the time, and said a subsequent proposed apology was “insincere”.

“She intimated that she knew two highly competent Queen’s councils and if we wished to pursue the matter – ‘bring it on’,” he said.