As a man confesses to punching a wall, 1.8 million Australians are watching

“I just absolutely lost it,” a man tells the camera, looking down and fidgeting while sombre music plays.

“I burst out outside the room and I just ended up just punching a hole in the wall.”

Almost 1.8 million Australians were watching Married at First Sight (MAFS) when Paul Antoine confessed his actions just over a month ago. 

Audiences, politicians and domestic violence experts have questioned the reality TV show’s response, less than a year after a national emergency was declared due to the rise of intimate partner violence at alarming rates.

Since its beginning in late January 2025, Season 12 of MAFS has attracted more than 2 million viewers over a 7-day period for every episode. Even for those who aren’t watching, it is hard to escape the commentary.

The show, which originated in Denmark, involves two strangers being “married” when they first meet before they live together and complete tasks in the weeks that follow.

Each week couples attend a commitment ceremony where their relationships are discussed with three experts. Couples decide if they want to stay or leave, only able to leave if both partners choose to.

‘You do not punch walls’

In episode 20, aired February 26, the audience learns that Paul punched a hole in a wall off-camera after a heated argument with his TV wife, Carina Mirabile, after she told him she had previously slept with a rapper.

More than 2 million viewers tuned in on March 2 to watch the following commitment ceremony.

The mood in the room was solemn as Paul relayed the incident again to the show’s experts.

“It does not matter how disrespected you felt, you do not punch walls … it intimidates,” sexologist Alessandra Rampolla said.

Carina said she did not condone what happened, but she believed it was an act of passion. She was quickly shut down by the expert for her comment. 

Paul was told he was “on notice” but allowed to stay on the show. The move did little to deter viewers, with 1,827,000 tuning in live the next day.

Both episodes were slated with a warning saying they contained adult themes and confronting issues. Another slate appeared during the March 2 episode, which said: “aggressive behaviour is never acceptable” and provided a link to a domestic violence support website.

The couple remained on the show until the final week, where they split during the final vows on March 30. 

A NSW Police investigation and a NSW SafeWork investigation are being conducted into the show following the wall punch.

A SafeWork spokesperson said the matter had been allocated to a SafeWork inspector from SafeWork NSW’s specialist psychological health and safety team and it was considering the report. 

A NSW Police spokesperson said inquiries were continuing.

Nine was approached for comment but declined. Endemol Shine has also been approached for comment. 

Police have previously investigated MAFS and another Endemol Shine production, Big Brother, for violent incidents. 

However, to date, no charges have ever been laid.

Normalising the behaviour

Domestic violence expert at Flinders University Dr Kate Seymour said the problem with the show’s response was it normalised the behaviour and individualised the issue.

“They [the participants] didn’t wake up that morning and think ‘Oh we’re gonna behave in this way’,” she said.

“They’re actually behaving in ways that are already existing are all already expected in society.”

Monash University’s Professor Kate Fitz-Gibbon, who specialises in family violence research, took issue with the decision to platform violence on the show. 

“For victim-survivors watching, seeing these behaviours dismissed or minimised on national television can be retraumatising.

“This is the opposite of the cultural shift we need to address the national crisis of violence against women.”

Former Bachelor NZ contestant and reality TV expert at Auckland University of Technology, Dr Rebecca Trelease, said due to its ratings, MAFS held a responsibility to educate its audience.

“If you have more viewers watching this instead of the news and you have a story about violence that occurs in a relationship, whether if it’s at a partner or in the vicinity of a partner, that becomes your responsibility,” she said.

A national crisis

Last year, 69 women were killed at the hands of gender-based violence and according to Femmecide Watch, 5 Australian women have been killed this year.

On April 28, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared Australia faced a “national crisis” of violence against women, with one woman being killed every four days.

When asked for comment, the prime minister’s office redirected the ABC to Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth.

She said in a statement ending violence against women and children required a whole of society approach. 

“Organisations responsible for media content, including reality TV shows, have a responsibility to use their powerful platforms to promote healthy and respectful relationships and ensure that content does not further harm victim-survivors, or perpetuate dangerous stereotypes around family and domestic violence,” she said.

While Mr Albanese did not respond to the ABC’s request, he did share a post on Instagram with MAFS participants Jeff Gobbels and Rhi Disljenkovic.

What are participants’ rights? 

There are questions about the participants’ rights under workplace laws, with an anonymous participant on this year’s season telling Yahoo News they are “contributors”, not employees.

A landmark ruling in 2019 regarding a workers’ compensation claim brought on by a House Rules contestant demonstrated arguments that could be used for worker or employment status under different laws, workplace relationship lawyer Michael Byrnes said.

Without seeing the contract, he said it could be credibly argued that reality TV stars were “workers” — a legally broad term that includes anyone who carries out work in any capacity for a business, including contractors.

It means they would be covered by the Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act, but not the more comprehensive Fair Work Act.

Reality TV participants are also not represented by a union. 

Mr Byrnes explained the WHS Act could apply to the violent behaviour on MAFS.

“Speaking generally, if a contestant is known to be violent, or has exhibited a propensity for violence, the other contestants are entitled to be protected from risks arising from that behaviour,” he said

“Depending on the circumstances, steps might include removing the contestant from the show, closely monitoring that contestant or increasing security for other contestants.”

Advertiser dollars

In a world where TV ratings across the board are decreasing, the high viewership of MAFS is very lucrative.

Nine Entertainment Co, which owns Fairfax Media and streaming on demand service Stan, reported $2.6 billion in revenue in 2024, $941 million coming from free-to-air advertising.

A national ad spot during the MAFS broadcast would be significant, likely costing upward of $100,000, with eight companies listed as sponsors this year.

Those companies have to be mindful of how the show’s reputation can become intertwined with its own, explained senior marketing lecturer at RMIT Dr Amanda Spry. Advertisers bank on that being positive, but sometimes it’s not.

Dr Spry said disassociating from the show can be its own form of publicity.

“If an advertiser was to walk away from Married at First Sight, saying that it’s because they don’t want to be seen to be complicit and supportive of the domestic violence narratives…. that can not only turn into a positive, pro-social conversation,” she said.

“But it can also generate positive publicity and reputation-building for that brand.”

It is rare for advertisers to walk away from programs, but it can happen.

In 2020 advertisers and sponsors walked away from The Ellen Show in the wake of reports of toxic workplace culture.

Advertisers also left the Alan Jones 2GB radio show in 2019 after he made indecent comments about then-New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern.

Dr Spry said it would be a difficult decision for MAFS advertisers to walk away.

“It’s really unparalleled in terms of its ratings, but also its cultural relevance,” she said.

Despite this season’s backlash, Dr Trelease doesn’t think the show will change from the production side.

“If you look at it from a purely business standpoint, you’re getting the viewers, you’re making advertisers happy, you’re actually stating a case for broadcast television over streaming devices, over expensive scripted television, make a really strong case as to why this should continue to be made,” she said.

“If there had to be a reason for it to stop, it would be because of an outside force, such as a regulatory body.