Criminal Law

Warning: This content discusses sexual violence.

Approximately three-quarters of Australians have watched a relationship-based reality TV program at some stage. Love Island, The Bachelor, Farmer Wants a Wife and Love on the Spectrum all attract significant attention. However, Married at First Sight (MAFS) dominates in viewership, as 2024 data demonstrated it reached almost two and a half million viewers in the season 11 debut.

Yet earlier this year, its popularity was called into question as serious misconduct allegations surfaced in relation to both MAFS United Kingdom and MAFS Australia programs. While the allegations serve as a confronting reminder of the prevalence of sexual violence, they also bring to light the mechanics of workplace harassment and discrimination in varying workplace dynamics.

MAFS Allegations

The allegations raised by contestants differed in reports from MAFS United Kingdom and MAFS Australia.

Contestants from the United Kingdom program came forward first, with three different women alleging sexual misconduct, two of whom stated the incidents occurred during the filming of the show. One woman alleges being sexually assaulted by her on-screen partner and threatened with an acid attack. Another also alleges being sexually assaulted by her on-screen partner. In this case, the woman alleges that she told the broadcaster prior to her episodes going to air, however they were aired regardless. The third allegation from a contestant is regarding her on-screen partner not withdrawing following an agreement to use the withdrawal method as contraception outside of filming.

Following the investigation by BBC Panorama that exposed these revelations, the UK’s Channel 4 removed all MAFS episodes. The Panorama investigation also led to Australian contestants coming forward regarding their experiences.

Multiple Australian contestants allege they were not told of their on-screen partners’ previous allegations and convictions. One male cast member told his on-screen partner about his past aggressive behaviour during filming, which he stated producers were aware of. This same cast member allegedly proceeded to smash a mic pack during filming and throw an object at producers. He denies all allegations. Another cast member, Adrian Araouzou, was convicted in 2017 of affray, which is the use of unlawful violence or threatening of such violence towards another person. Araouzou was also acquitted of domestic violence. His on-screen partner was not made aware of the affray conviction, and in response to the BBC, Araouzou stated that the information they put to him was “false”.

Despite the production company behind MAFS maintaining that it conducts extensive background and police checks, previous contestants have stated that their checks were “rushed”.

Industry Concerns

For some contestants, certain aspects of the reality TV industry contribute to the issue.

Themed weeks or events are common in many relationship-based shows. Notably in MAFS, ‘Intimacy Week’ and ‘Partner Swap’ have raised concerns for previous contestants. Former MAFS Australia contestant Tahnee Cook found the challenges made her uncomfortable and increased pressure to be intimate.

A lack of responsible storytelling can likewise portray serious incidents poorly. Deliberate ‘villain casting’ and editing can alter events and cause psychosocial harm to cast members.

However, contestants may be able to claim compensation for such psychosocial injuries.

In 2019, the NSW Workers Compensation Commission (WCC) ruled that Nicole Prince, a contestant on an Australian reality TV show ‘House Rules’, was entitled to compensation after claiming she had been psychologically traumatised by the show. Prince stated she had been “harassed and bullied throughout filming” and that such behaviour was “condoned” by the producer.

Importantly, the Commission found that Prince was an employee.

A 2021 decision by the NSW Personal Injury Commission (PIC) found similar, ordering compensation for a My Kitchen Rules contestant who was centred in a “sex scandal” storyline.

Both findings suggest that, for compensation purposes, the employer-employee relationship can extend to broadcasting networks and reality TV contestants.

Beyond Reality TV

When it comes to workplace sexual harassment, a strict employer-employee relationship is not required for compensation. Under s 527D of the Fair Work Act, a person is protected from sexual harassment in ‘connection to work’. Examples of workers that this could apply to include contractors, apprentices, work experience students or volunteers.

For employees, workplace sexual harassment can present in many forms. Harassment may be physical, such as unwanted touching or hugging; verbal conduct, including sexual jokes or questions; visual and digital conduct; and power-based conduct. Both a workers’ compensation claim and a civil claim can be made; they are not mutually exclusive. To find more information about what constitutes workplace sexual harassment, or pathways to claim compensation, click here.

For employers, a positive duty exists to take active, ongoing steps to prevent sexual harassment, sex discrimination and other related misconduct from occurring. The seven standards expected by the Australian Human Rights Commission to satisfy the positive duty include, among others, monitoring, evaluation and transparency; leadership; and risk management. Employers can be held vicariously liable for sexual harassment carried out by an employee or agent. However, a defence exists if they can prove they took all reasonable steps to prevent the conduct.

Seeking Help

While not all reality TV allegations mentioned represent workplace sexual harassment, they shine a light on the legal right of a worker to be free from violence, harassment, and discrimination. The incidents similarly affirm that these issues occur across a range of industries and forms of work.

If you believe you have experienced workplace sexual harassment, find out how Koffels can help.