Given that he lies/misleads about Tata and Reliance being household names in the lines above, I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

that shows nothing of the sort. Yes, he is a Minister, but in what capacity was he there?

As it wasn’t a state funded trip its more likely he was not there wearing his Minister hat. Clark used to play this game as well, she would often change her hats from PM to Labour Party Leader as it suited he, same here me thinks. Not a good look for Worth, but, after the performance of Goff in QT today I can’t see any legs on this one.

Richard Worth, speaking today in the House:

“I did not speak as a Minister of any portfolio at any event or ceremony during my visit to India.”

Now, where can we find clear evidence of the Minister speaking in India as, er … a Minister? Some dodgy leftie gossip blog, perhaps?

Answer: The Minister’s own website:

http://www.richardworth.co.nz/uploads/Minister2.JPG

Oh dear.

You made a wee typo there – the name is spelt Worth.

Ah, the arrogance of power. I’m afraid it did for Benson-Pope, caught in a denial, and now it will finish off Worth. All he had to do today was appear contrite and he could have killed the story. Instead he stood up in the House and categorically denied he acted as a Minister at any time during the India trip.

This will be very surprising news to his gracious hosts!

Now, what’s the international dialing code for India, it’s time to make a few phone calls …

But he also says 2 million, and I have no idea what he’s referring to there. Perhaps half of NZers don’t count?

That would explain why they think that “most” New Zealanders will be better off with National’s tax cuts too.

My own comment was quite reserved. Most of the other comments are the same. I guess that we (lefties) get somewhat pissed off because over at Kiwiblogland Helen is practically accused of eating babies live and there is never any second thought about it. But over here the D word keeps being used every time a legitimate concern is raised.

Of course the matter needs further investigation because the numbers are odd. But it would be hard pressed to imagine that Worth said “Massey University School of Aviation” when what was reported was “Southern Institute of Technology Civil Aviation Limited”.

Worth is also a public figure. Qualified privilege applies. As long as there is not malice then they are fair game. The comments that I have read here are not radical.

To refine what I said before if it is shown that Worth, during the course of giving a Ministerial Speech, advocated or supported the use of a commercial entity that he had an interest in and from which he would receive a financial benefit from, then that is inappropriate and in my view he should no longer be a Minister.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2302918/SIT-Worth-at-variance/

Groser is next on the list…

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10564485

Then there’s this bit (as reported by the Herald):
Mr Key said he would not have sanctioned the trip if he had known Dr Worth was a director and shareholder in an aviation company which was in a joint venture with an Invercargill flight training academy.
But isn’t it his job to know? The relevant facts are right there in Worth’s statement of pecuniary interests [PDF], and are presumably in the equivalent Cabinet version as well. Does Key bother to read these? Or does he just turn a blind eye?

So either Key doesn’t do his job and is as incompetent as we all thought or he knew about Worth’s conflict of interest and turns a blind eye to corruption either way it doesn’t bode well for the smiling assassin.