CFMEU advertising to be removed from side of AdelaideMetro tram, as union accused of ‘lapping up’ controversy

CFMEU advertising plastered onto the sides of an AdelaideMetro tram is expected to be removed today, while the union has been accused of “lapping up” the controversy generated by the wrap.

CFMEU advertising plastered onto the sides of an AdelaideMetro tram is expected to be removed on Monday – nearly two months after it was installed in breach of government rules.

The state opposition said the union was “lapping up” the controversy generated by the advertisement, after a bizarre video was posted that showed members chanting and wrestling in front of the tram.

Opposition infrastructure and transport spokesman Vincent Tarzia earlier in the day renewed calls for the advertising to be taken down.

A government spokesman said in December the “wrap” would be removed in mid-January, and would not be renewed.

On Monday, a Department for Infrastructure and Transport spokesman said removal was underway.

“The tram is in the depot and we expect the wrap to be removed today,” he said.

A CFMEU spokeswoman said the tram wrap advertisement had ended as scheduled, but the union’s membership drive campaign was ongoing. Other elements include radio advertisements and billboards in the CBD.

CFMEU state secretary John Setka appeared on the side of a tram as part of a union advertising campaign. Picture: Supplied

The tram was first spotted in the CBD in November last year.

In December, the union posted a video of male members chanting “union power” while standing in front of the tram in Victoria Square. At the end of the video, the men begin to wrestle each other.

Mr Tarzia said the video showed the union was “absolutely taking the piss”.

The advertisement, which featured a large photo of union boss John Setka, first appeared on a tram in November.

Mr Setka’s estranged wife, Emma Walters, who relies on public transport as a means of travel, was upset by the advertisement.

At the time, the government acknowledged political advertising should not have been installed on a public asset.