Internal Affairs Minister Richard Worth was grilled in Parliament yesterday over his links to another company with ties to India.

Dr Worth found himself in hot water this week over a private trip to India during which he spoke in his ministerial capacity and promoted a company in which he had an interest, leading to a dressing down from Prime Minister John Key.

Dr Worth resigned this week as a director of New Zealand Aviation, which is linked to an Invercargill air training academy that wants to train Indian pilots.

He also resigned from the Indian Overseas Group, which lobbies for closer trade links between the two countries.

After being grilled over the issue in Parliament on Tuesday, Dr Worth had to explain matters again yesterday when asked by Labour's immigration spokesman, Pete Hodgson, why he owned 5000 shares in Indian financial services company WSD Global Markets Ltd.

"How does that reflect on his judgment?" Mr Hodgson asked.

Dr Worth said shares in the company were held by his family trust and were in the process of being sold.

Mr Hodgson asked Dr Worth if he was aware a company associated with WSD Global was thrown out of the Cook Islands last week after a Serious Fraud Office investigation into money laundering.

"I don't know of those matters," Dr Worth said.

He said the company he was involved with was WSD Global Risks - a New Zealand firm.

The Companies Office lists Dr Worth's name alongside 5000 shares with WSD Global Markets, which is registered in New Zealand. It has a total of 109 million shares.

The National Business Review reported this week its listing on the New Zealand stock exchange had been stalled.

Mr Hodgson also asked why Dr Worth had obtained the shares while he was a director of the company, a day before last year's general election.

Dr Worth said the shares may have been entered on to the register on that date, but the purchase date was different.

Mr Hodgson then went on to question why Dr Worth had tampered with his own Wikipedia page entry this week.

The website administrator had advised Dr Worth to consult the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines, Mr Hodgson said.

The question and answer session descended into a debate about whether the topic remained relevant and ended without Dr Worth's response to the Wikipedia question.