It would seem reasonable to assume that any trade association would be universally applauded for attempting to end division and unite its industry. Unfortunately, but predictably, that has not been the case for the jewellery industry in recent weeks.
On 27 October, the Jewellers Association of Australia (JAA) announced it will exhibit and participate in the Australian Jewellery Fair, scheduled for 19–20 April 2026 at the Adelaide Convention Centre.
It was an unexpected announcement that represented a significant step forward for the embattled JAA, suggesting that the organisation is ready to engage with the broader market after spending nearly a decade on the sidelines.
Indeed, the JAA will join the three major buying groups in Adelaide – Nationwide Jewellers, Showcase Jewellers, and the Independent Jewellers Collective – as well as other industry associations, including the Gemmological Association of Australia (GAA) and the Gold & Silversmiths Guild of Australia (GSGA).
The Australian Jewellery Fair will provide the JAA with free exhibition space and other benefits, as well as face-to-face access to leading suppliers and retail buyers. It’s a chance for the JAA to further its mission of fostering collaboration and industry growth.
With that in mind, the JAA’s decision to exhibit in Adelaide next year appears logically consistent and, therefore, worthy of praise. Following the announcement, Jeweller received feedback from leading suppliers, all expressing approval that, after nearly 10 years in the wilderness, the organisation would participate in one of the jewellery industry’s largest annual trade shows.
Yet, as is so often the case in industries with a long history of petty politics, it seems not everyone agrees.
Unfortunately, reactions have been mixed elsewhere, with a small but vocal minority airing grievances in familiar corners of social media.
I’m sure that won’t come as a surprise to many readers. Even when the news is overwhelmingly positive, some people can’t help but gravitate towards criticism and negativity. It’s the classic ‘glass half empty’ attitude.
With that said, among the detractors are two former JAA board members, who are relying on misinformation to make their point.
The JAA’s participation in the Australian Jewellery Fair indicates a willingness to move on from past disputes. Meanwhile, the criticism from former board members suggests that some people are incapable of setting aside the petty politics that have divided the industry for nearly 10 years.
These protests reflect a desire to preserve the ‘status quo’, which is a divided jewellery industry. It’s a reminder that much of the tension and division within the industry has been fuelled by a small but vocal group unwilling to put aside past grudges.
More importantly, given that many of the comments made by these former JAA board members are verifiably false, it’s worth asking the Latin question: ‘cui bono?’
It translates as ‘to whom does it benefit?’ and is often used rhetorically to explore the motive behind an action.
Life is too short for long-term grudges
The decision to ‘rekindle the romance’ between the industry’s largest events organiser and the member-based association has been spearheaded by two new board members — Jay Barlett and Stephen Schneider — appointed in April.
When Expertise Events announced the news, it was described as the beginning of a ‘new chapter’. The media release included a broad apology from Bartlett to anyone affected by the 2016 split between the organisations.
Bartlett specifically noted that he cannot speak for former boards, as he was not a director at the time. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the damage and division caused by previous decisions.
“The current Board is focused on making things right where we can and on strengthening what unites us and benefits the broader industry,” Bartlett explained.
Bartlett is one of six members of the JAA board and the only director to date to share his personal opinion publicly on this matter.
It is highly unlikely that all current board members share Bartlett’s perspective or agree with his decision to issue an apology.
With that said, the JAA’s board has been unequivocal about the intent behind his statements.
“Above all, Jay’s private comments were made in good faith and to support greater unity within the jewellery industry,” the JAA board said in a statement to Jeweller.
“The JAA Board remains firmly committed to professionalism, transparency, and the advancement of constructive relationships across the Australian jewellery industry.”
Indeed, the JAA’s core values emphasise unity and collaboration. With that in mind, finding grounds to justify opposition in the association’s return to the Australian Jewellery Fair seems difficult, if not impossible.
So, what would motivate two former board members to publicly criticise the JAA for doing so? Who benefits from this ‘attack’? Cui bono?
Welcome to the echo chamber
As mentioned, a small band of retailers and suppliers took to social media to criticise the JAA’s decision. On the Facebook group Jewellers Co., formerly known as the Young Jewellers Group, several interesting examples have been noted.
One particular example is Karen Lindley, who first served on the JAA board between 2004 and 2006. She returned to the board in November 2016 after vice president Laura Moore was forced to resign due to her sudden departure from Peter W Beck in October 2016. Lindley quit the board for a second time in 2020.
“I was on the board when all this went down. Expertise Events owes the JAA a great deal of money and has refused to pay...end of subject. They behaved appallingly. And their antics when we tried to recover the funds were also all appalling,” she wrote.
This allegation is demonstrably false, and anyone wishing to verify this can contact current JAA president Joshua Sharp or vice president Ronnie Bauer directly.
Three years ago, Sharp advised Jeweller that he had contacted Expertise Events managing director Gary Fitz-Roy to make it clear that the “past contractual dispute is dead and buried”.
Sharp’s statement was necessitated by unsupported allegations made by JAA vice president Ronnie Bauer in early November 2022.
“There’s a lot of history between the JAA and Expertise Events. There’s a financial dispute between the JAA and Expertise Events, which dates back to before COVID and involves royalty rights,” Bauer told Jeweller at the time.
He made other allegations and claims. Two weeks later, Bauer retracted his allegations and publicly apologised to Fitz-Roy.
“I, Ronnie Bauer, have been directly quoted or stated to have said, there’s a financial dispute between the JAA and Expertise Events which dates back to before COVID and involves royalty rights, and the JAA was still exploring avenues for recovering the alleged debt from 2016.”
Bauer added, “I acknowledge that between 2016 and 2019 I was not on the [JAA] board and as such I was not privy to any negotiations that were conducted by the JAA and Expertise Events.”
This information has been a matter of public record for three years. Bauer’s retraction and apology were a public embarrassment for the JAA, yet Lindley has chosen to perpetuate this false allegation.
If the current president and vice president have publicly confirmed that any past ‘contractual disputes’ between the JAA and Expertise Events are ‘dead and buried’, why would anyone repeat this claim?
Who benefits from this spread of misinformation? Cui bono?
It gets even better…
Lindley’s criticism of the JAA’s attempt to put the past behind it went further.
“It's very disappointing to see that the [JAA] Chair allowed this to occur and I suspect a lot of members will resign in protest. It should've been put to the members at the AGM,” she wrote.
There’s more to the history between Lindley and Expertise Events that has not previously been disclosed – until now. This context may be helpful in understanding her harsh criticism of the JAA.
Jeweller reported in 2017 that a JAA board member had contacted this publication with allegations of inappropriate or illegal conduct involving Leading Edge and Expertise Events.
The allegations were provided via email, and a single phone call revealed that, while serious, they were entirely untrue.
At the time, the board member was asked why the allegations had first been raised with a third-party (Jeweller) rather than directly with its own member (Leading Edge), or with the company that she alleged was in breach of the law (Expertise Events).
This was particularly concerning conduct from a member of the JAA board – taking the matter to a trade publication before addressing it with the relevant parties was a bizarre and, quite frankly, unbecoming decision.
With that said, the allegations were so serious that solicitors demanded a retraction and a formal apology.
As readers will have undoubtedly guessed by now, the author of both the allegations and the subsequent apology was Karen Lindley.
In February 2017, Lindley replied to an email from a solicitor representing Expertise Events, stating: “As you can see I was misinformed and apologised immediately. Such apology is hereby repeated to your client”.
Given that the matter was quickly resolved privately, Jeweller elected not to reveal that Lindley was the author of the allegations and apology at the time.
With that said, given that Lindley has recently taken to social media to describe the conduct of Expertise Events as “appalling” – when at the time, she was the one who exercised poor judgment and subsequently apologised – it would seem appropriate that readers are given a more complete version of events.
With that said, this example merely highlights the ‘fork in the road’ faced by the JAA and some of its supposed ‘supporters’.
While the JAA is attempting to mend bridges and create constructive relationships, it appears that others remain committed to the petty politics of yesteryears and are not interested in moving forward. Who benefits from this? Cui bono?
Don’t say sorry unless you mean it
This previously unreported ‘history’ between the JAA board and Expertise Events is relevant in light of comments in the Jewellers Co. Facebook group from another former JAA board member, Ian Brookes.
Brookes joined the JAA board in 2009 as state director for South Australia. He held that position until 2014, when he stepped down, and Laura Moore was announced as his successor.
“As a former JAA State Director and National Board Member, I find this decision pretty disappointing. Previous JAA management didn't 'create any problems', they volunteered their time and worked really hard to get the best deal for JAA members,” Brookes wrote.
“Perhaps Jay should talk to previous board members and read the minutes from previous board meetings before apologising for prior management and board members... from what I remember, there is nothing to apologise for."
Perhaps if Brookes had been aware of Lindley’s apology in 2017, he would not have suggested that past JAA boards have “nothing to apologise for.” Perhaps he was not aware of the public apology issued by Bauer in 2022.
Regardless, it’s worth asking the question: If there’s nothing to apologise for, why has the JAA repeatedly apologised?
To some small degree, the suggestion by Brookes that past JAA management “didn’t create any problems” may be a matter of personal opinion.
With that said, we know that the JAA suffered a decline in membership of approximately 70 per cent in the aftermath of the decision to launch a competing trade show.
It’s also a matter of public record that, as a part of that decision, the JAA scrapped a sponsorship agreement with Experise Events that had netted the organisation more than $1 million over the decade before the split.
Indeed, in pursuit of a trade show that never materialised, the JAA board lost a revenue stream and membership base that has never been replaced.
These are undeniable consequences and not subjective opinions, and you can’t move on from the past by sticking your head in the sand and pretending it never happened.
This brings us to another question the JAA detractors need to answer: How can the JAA hope to rebuild membership, revenue, and relevance if it remains on the ‘outside looking in’ of the largest annual event on the industry’s calendar?
More importantly, who benefits from the preservation of a divided industry? Cui bono?
Something else to consider…
Another matter that has not been publicly revealed, until now, is that the agreement for the JAA to exhibit at the Australian Jewellery Fair does not include any form of ‘exclusivity’.
Nothing is preventing the JAA from exhibiting at trade shows organised by both Expertise Events and the Jewellery Industry Network in 2026.
Over the past decade, Expertise Events has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not rely on the JAA for a successful trade show. It has, essentially, been business as usual.
In simple terms, this makes the JAA’s participation in the Australian Jewellery Fair a neutral outcome for Expertise Events.
In fact, there is a cost to Expertise Events because it bears the expense of the JAA’s participation, including exhibition space, promotion, and forgone income from offering the space to paying exhibitors.
As detailed above, the JAA has much to gain from exhibiting at the Australian Jewellery Fair, including the opportunity to appear alongside the three buying groups and other industry associations and speak directly with key industry suppliers and retail buyers.
With that in mind, exhibiting in Adelaide is clearly a positive outcome for the JAA.
With that established, it is only reasonable to ask: What is motivating these former board members to criticise the JAA for making such an obviously strategically sound decision? Cui bono?
Final points to consider
Brookes’ critique suggests Bartlett should have consulted former board members and read prior meeting minutes before issuing his personal apology.
Which minutes should take priority? Those documenting the misguided decision to walk away from the much-needed sponsorship income in 2016, or the minutes regarding the eventual collapse of its JAA Trade Show, or board minutes showing public apologies issued for misinformation and false allegations?
Selectively consulting past documents risks drawing current leadership into the same echo chamber of petty politics. That is precisely what the JAA seems to be trying to leave behind.
Indeed, these former board members appear to be holding a grudge that has cost the JAA income, members, and relevance in the industry. It's been said that holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.
Lindley warned: “It is very disappointing to see the chair allowed this to occur and I suspect a lot of members will resign in protest.”
This ominous prediction seems somewhat accurate. For example, consider the comments made by Jane Williams, another contributor to Jewellers Co.
She wrote: “Disgusting, fancy apologising for past board members!!! When it has been Expertise Events who have done the dirty all along”.
She added that she had resigned from the JAA: “I might be small but I have a lovely network of loyal wonderful people”.
Williams is not a former board member of the JAA. According to her social media account, Williams is the owner of ‘Just Fudge It’ – a business that sells handmade South Australian fudge. She’s also a jewellery supplier via JW Jewellery.
This social media account also indicates that she was employed at Peter W Beck from 2010 through 2014, which just so happens to coincide with Laura Moore’s employment at the same company, 2009-2016. Moore was the vice president in 2016 and spearheaded the JAA’s decision to end its 25-year agreement with Expertise Events.
Either way, it’s somewhat ironic to hear that a JAA member with an Adelaide-based business is quitting the association because it is choosing to participate in a jewellery trade show in her home city.
Surely, that should be considered a good thing? Several prominent South Australian suppliers Jeweller has spoken with since the announcement was made seemed to think it was. Williams clearly disagrees, and she quit the JAA because of it!
Either way, the JAA would be well served to take a ‘glass half full’ approach to such membership cancellations.
At first, it may sting a little; however, these protestors, detractors, and naysayers are clearly not aligned with the JAA’s core values, which are as follows:
- We create unity and collaboration through a preparedness to work with all stakeholders for the benefit and progression of the jewellery industry
- We lead through representation of the various sectors of the jewellery industry and their interests
It could reasonably be argued that anyone who takes issue with the JAA attempting to mend bridges, move on from the past, and unite the jewellery industry is not suited to be a member.
On the bright side, hopefully, this clears the way for the JAA to recruit members who support collaboration and constructive engagement rather than clinging to outdated grudges.
Bartlett, Schneider, and the remainder of the JAA board should view these member cancellations as removing obstacles to new growth, like a forest regenerating after a fire.
Sometimes a forest must burn to begin again. Fire clears decay, releases seeds, and nourishes the soil, allowing new life to rise from the ashes.
It’s only after misinformation, grudges, and politics are thoroughly removed that the JAA can fully pursue its core values and strengthen the Australian jewellery industry for years to come.