A Liberal candidate for the South Australian state election has come under fire after sharing extreme views on homosexuality and feminism in a religious podcast. With voters set to cast their ballots on 21 March, the controversy raises uncomfortable questions about how thoroughly major parties vet their candidates before endorsement.
Carston Woodhouse is the candidate for the seat of Wright in Adelaide's northern suburbs. He has taken part in several episodes of the evangelical American religious 'ElijahFire' podcast, where he is positioned as a bible teacher, preacher and prophetic voice. The Labor Party exposed the podcast quotes to media.
On the broadcast, Woodhouse made statements that contradict his campaign messaging. He labels feminism as "demonic", says "same-sex marriage isn't real", and questions the "demonic realms" that might open when "you accept homosexuality." In one segment, Woodhouse said women shouldn't have rights to abortion if they were raped or a victim of incest, saying "Even the whole rape, incest thing, I would agree with Charlie Kirk's take on that."
His official Liberal campaign page describes him as "standing to ensure government accountability, and common-sense leadership that puts people first and restores fairness for all South Australians", whilst bringing "extensive international and local experience across hospitality, education, and humanitarian work." None of his religious affiliations feature in this material. This gap between public positioning and private commentary raises legitimate questions about candidate vetting.
Woodhouse is not alone in generating controversy on this issue. Former Liberal Senator turned One Nation candidate Cory Bernardi, preparing to run for One Nation in South Australia, has stood behind controversial comments made over a decade ago linking gay marriage to bestiality, saying he "100 per cent" stands by his previous comments.
The timing is particularly significant. Critics argue that "the ramifications of having such a shambolic pre-selection process is that the SA Liberal Party does not have the time to do the proper vetting it should do", noting that "the people that hold those extreme views are now not just people on the fringes of a major political party like the SA Liberal party. They are people who are actually pre-selected candidates for public office, at a state election."
Advocates have also drawn attention to a structural protection gap. The President of the South Australian chapter of Pride in Law highlighted that "LGBTIQA+ South Australians have no legal protection from hate speech", noting this is "out of step with anti-vilification laws in NSW, QLD, TAS, VIC and ACT."
The incident exposes real fault lines in party management. A crowded candidacy field, combined with limited time for due diligence, has allowed candidates with documented extreme views to secure official endorsement from a major party. For South Australia's Liberal Party, seeking to rebuild after recent electoral losses, this controversy arrives at precisely the wrong moment. For voters in Wright and across the state, the revelation reinforces a familiar concern: political parties will only scrutinise what they actively search for.