In May 2026, SafeWork NSW confirmed it had issued Married At First Sight producer Endemol Shine Australia three improvement notices over psychosocial hazards on set, following five Requests for Service since 2025. The lesson: reality TV contestants are legally “workers,” and no business — however high-profile — is exempt from psychosocial hazard duties.
Key facts at a glance
- SafeWork NSW confirmed three improvement notices against Endemol Shine Australia (MAFS producer), revealed publicly on 28 May 2026.
- The notices addressed incident reporting, systems of work for physical and psychological hazards, and WHS training.
- Five Requests for Service were lodged since 2025 — four during the 2025 season, plus one in early 2026.
- Confirmed via a written answer tabled in the NSW Legislative Council by Minister Sophie Cotsis, responding to the Hon. Mark Latham MLC.
- Public allegations included non-consensual touching, filming a participant showering without consent, blocked exits, and shifts with as little as six hours’ break.
- SafeWork NSW’s Commissioner is meeting Endemol Shine executives; compliance monitoring continues.
- A Category 1 WHS offence (gross negligence/recklessness) now carries a maximum penalty of $11,839,000 for a body corporate (as at 1 July 2025).
This article touches on a contestant’s death that prompted one of the Requests for Service. Public reporting is consistent that the death occurred outside the production and there is no suggestion it was connected to the show. If anything in this article raises concerns for you, Lifeline is available 24/7 on 13 11 14.
Why did SafeWork NSW issue improvement notices to MAFS?
SafeWork NSW’s involvement began after a viewer complained about an on-air scene in which a participant punched a hole in a wall. That opened a wider review. Three participants then raised further allegations against cast and crew, and freedom-of-information documents obtained by the Sydney Morning Herald described the claims as “potentially serious psychosocial hazards” in a report prepared for Minister Cotsis.
SafeWork NSW ordered Endemol Shine to fix three areas: incident reporting, systems of work for physical and psychological hazards on set, and WHS training. A spokesperson confirmed to media the 2025-season requests for service are now closed, but compliance monitoring continues, and a separate Request for Service lodged in early 2026, referenced in a written answer tabled in the NSW Legislative Council, remains part of the regulator’s ongoing scrutiny.
Is a reality TV contestant actually a “worker” under WHS law?
This is the detail that makes the MAFS case instructive beyond entertainment. Under section 7 of the model Work Health and Safety Act — adopted by NSW — a person is a “worker” if they carry out work in any capacity for a person conducting a business or undertaking (a PCBU). The definition is deliberately broad: employees, contractors, volunteers, students on placement — and, on the reading applied here, participants in a structured production environment where a company directs their movements, schedule and access to support.
The takeaway: your duty to manage psychosocial hazards isn’t limited to people on your payroll. If your organisation directs how, when and under what conditions someone works, you may owe them the same duty as an employee.
What are psychosocial hazards, in this context?
Psychosocial hazards are workplace factors that can cause psychological or physical harm — taken as seriously as physical hazards under current WHS law. The MAFS allegations map onto recognised hazard categories: exposure to aggression, high job demands (filming schedules), lack of control (curfews, limited privacy), and poor support systems. Nine and Endemol Shine say participants have access to an on-set psychologist — but the notices show a support service alone isn’t proof hazards are being systematically identified, assessed and controlled.
How does the MAFS case fit the national enforcement pattern?
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| 2025 season | Viewer complaint over an on-air incident prompts SafeWork NSW’s first look at production conditions. |
| 2025 | Three participants lodge further allegations covering conduct, plus privacy and consent concerns. |
| Early 2026 | A further Request for Service is lodged, later referenced in NSW Legislative Council questions. |
| 6 May 2026 | Minister Sophie Cotsis tables a written answer confirming three improvement notices had been issued. |
| 27–28 May 2026 | SMH publishes FOI-obtained allegation detail; SafeWork NSW confirms notice categories to media. |
| Ongoing | SafeWork NSW’s Commissioner meets Endemol Shine executives; compliance monitoring continues. |
The MAFS notices sit inside a broader trend. SafeWork NSW now runs 20 dedicated psychosocial inspectors backed by $127.7 million over four years. In Victoria, Court Services Victoria was fined $379,157 in October 2023 after a toxic culture at the Coroners Court of Victoria was found to have contributed to an employee’s death and widespread psychological harm — still the benchmark case for what unmanaged psychosocial risk can cost. Regulators nationally now treat psychosocial failures like physical safety breaches.
The pattern to notice: in each case, the finding wasn’t that harm occurred — it was that the employer had no adequate system to identify, assess and act on the risk beforehand. That is the gap regulators are now actively looking for.
What penalties can apply if an employer gets this wrong?
Under the model WHS laws NSW and most states have adopted, a Category 1 offence — gross negligence or recklessness exposing someone to risk of death or serious injury — carries a maximum penalty of $11,839,000 for a body corporate and up to $2,368,000 for an individual PCBU (as at 1 July 2025). Lower-tier offences still reach the hundreds of thousands of dollars, as psychosocial enforcement aligns with physical-hazard enforcement.
What should employers take from this?
The MAFS case is a reminder, not an outlier. Three takeaways apply to any business, regardless of size:
- Name the actual hazards your business creates. A generic template register won’t hold up to scrutiny.
- Make controls operational, not aspirational. A support service alone isn’t evidence a hazard is controlled.
- Report and document properly. A regulator learning of an incident from a complaint, not your systems, is itself a gap.
Building genuine capability to recognise and respond to psychosocial distress early — before it becomes a WHS incident or a claim — is exactly what a trained Psychological First Aider provides.
Trained staff who can recognise distress and know when to escalate are a documented, defensible control — not a poster on a wall. FMS Training’s nationally accredited Provide Psychological First Aid (PUARCV001) is delivered online, nationwide, and builds this capability into your risk management system. See our explainers on employers’ psychosocial hazard duties and 2026’s enforcement wave, or how to become an accredited Psychological First Aider.
Frequently asked questions
Why did SafeWork NSW issue improvement notices to Married At First Sight?
It investigated a viewer complaint and several participant allegations about conduct and conditions in the 2025 season, then ordered producer Endemol Shine Australia to fix incident reporting, psychosocial hazard management systems, and WHS training.
Is Married At First Sight being prosecuted?
No. SafeWork NSW confirmed the matter resulted in improvement notices, not a prosecution. Its Commissioner is meeting Endemol Shine executives and continuing to monitor compliance.
Is a TV contestant legally a “worker” under WHS law?
The model WHS Act’s definition of “worker” is broad — it covers anyone carrying out work in any capacity for a business, not just direct employees.
What do the three improvement notices actually require?
Better reporting of notifiable incidents, stronger systems of work for managing physical and psychological hazards, and improved WHS training.
What happened with the death of a MAFS contestant mentioned in reporting?
A Request for Service was lodged in early 2026 following the death of a Season 1 contestant. Public reporting is clear the death occurred outside the production, with no suggestion it was connected to the show. Lifeline (13 11 14) is available 24/7.
What penalties can apply for psychosocial hazard failures generally?
Under the model WHS laws, a Category 1 offence carries a maximum penalty of $11,839,000 for a body corporate as at 1 July 2025. Lower-tier offences still reach the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Does this only affect large companies like TV networks?
No. The same duties and broad “worker” definition apply to businesses of every size.
How can a business show it is managing psychosocial hazards properly?
By keeping a hazard register specific to its own operations, using operational (not aspirational) controls — including trained staff who can identify and respond to distress — and documenting reporting and review processes.