While the grounds for his ‘complaint’ were accurate, it was without merit. This is because a closer analysis of the events highlights the continuing division that plagues the industry.
Sharp's version of events also exposes deeper issues with the Jewellers Association of Australia (JAA) governance, priorities, and mismanagement of industry representation and relationships.
These are issues that can no longer be dismissed as mere oversights or simple miscommunication and which must be addressed sooner rather than later.
Apprenticeships Priority List
By way of background, the issue arose following Jeweller’s recent coverage of efforts to improve financial support for jewellery apprentices.
Earlier reporting in April 2025 and January 2026 had outlined how the three major buying groups — Nationwide Jewellers, Showcase Jewellers, and the Independent Jewellers Collective — began working together early last year to address the industry’s ongoing shortage of apprentices.
Their work led to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations publishing an updated Australian Apprenticeships Priority List, effective from 1 January 2026.
As a result, jewellery apprentices are now eligible for a broad range of government-supported financial assistance including interest-free loans up to $26,000.
It was therefore surprising when the JAA released a media statement on 21 January that failed to acknowledge the work of the buying groups or the individuals who led the initiative: Colin Pocklington, Anthony Enriquez, and Joshua Zarb.
The omission was conspicuous. Jeweller noted at the time that the JAA's confusing statement could have resulted from imprecise wording, unfortunate timing, or an attempt to take credit for the outcome. Readers were invited to draw their own conclusions.
After the publication of the article on 28 January, JAA president Joshua Sharp contacted this publication requesting, what he described as, a “clarification” to the story.
To understand why this request matters — and why Jeweller stands by its reporting — it is necessary to consider the broader context.
Five days after the article was published, Sharp wrote to Jeweller saying that there had been a “factual omission that has led to a misleading impression.”
In simple terms, Sharp took issue with the fact that the article did not mention one specific detail in the timeline; an ‘out of the office’ auto-response email.
Fortunately, the record in this matter is straightforward.
It shows that Jeweller emailed Sharp on 13 January seeking comment from the JAA regarding its involvement in the government’s change in policy benefitting the Australian jewellery industry. The out-of-office reply from Sharp indicated he would not be available until 27 January.
On this point he is correct; however, there is a lot more to the story than first meets the eye.
As stated, the article in question was published on 28 January, more than 24 hours after Sharp had returned to work and more than two weeks after the initial email was sent. Sharp did not contact Jeweller until 3 February, nearly a week after publication.
During the two weeks before publication, no other response was received.
For that reason, Jeweller stands by the original statement that “Sharp did not acknowledge the email or provide a response.”
It was, and remains, factually correct.
More to the story
What Sharp fails to acknowledge — or chooses to ignore — is that he was not the only recipient of the original email.
The JAA has created a media policy which states: “To streamline communication, all media inquiries and requests for comment must be submitted in writing to info@jaa.com.au. The Board will strive to respond to all requests within 48 hours. Requests for expedited replies will not be accommodated.”
Jeweller respected this policy by including the info@ email address and understands that this account is monitored by the JAA’s Operations Manager, Megan Young, who has nearly two decades of management experience with the organisation.
The complete context of the matter, therefore, is that Jeweller complied with the JAA’s media policy and received no acknowledgment from Sharp, Young, or any other staff member for two weeks.
Background reading: JAA detractors must answer some tough questions
You don't need to be a member of a buying group or a trade association to recognise the importance of any organisation adhering to their own stated policies.
Indeed, a brief response acknowledging receipt or suggesting how the matter might be handled while Sharp was away would have been a basic professional courtesy.
More importantly, it would have ensured adherence to the JAA’s own stated standards; instead the JAA board and/or staff ignored the email for two weeks.
The JAA cannot reasonably expect strict compliance with its media policy from journalists while failing to meet even its most minimal internal obligations. That is a clear double standard.
Bigger questions
The issues do not end there. Sharp’s ‘complaint’ implies that he could not respond to, or was unaware of, the questions in the 13 January email because he was out-of-office until 27 January.
However, the JAA’s media statement — which ignored the effort of the three buying groups — was published on 21 January, one day after Jeweller’s story.
This raises obvious questions. If Sharp was out-of-office, was the media statement published without the his (the president's) knowledge or approval?
If so, were board members consulted before it went live?
If the board did not collectively authorise the statement in the president’s absence, then it should investigate who drafted the statement and who approved its publication - particularly given that it omitted the contributions of the buying groups.
Alternatively, if Sharp did approve the statement during the period he claims to have been unavailable, then he should have been aware of Jeweller’s inquiry well before publication.
It would have been remiss of Young not to have advised him of our questions.
That scenario raises another concern: Why approve a public statement on the subject without acknowledging or responding to a formal request for comment on the same topic?
Either way, the central issues remains the same: Why is the JAA not adhering to its own media policy and who at the JAA wrote and approved the misleading and/or confusing media statement?
The JAA’s Code of Conduct covers many issues on how retailers should run their business and demands that they:
- Conduct themselves and their business with honesty, courtesy and integrity and in such a manner as to not bring disrepute to the jewellery industry.
- Abstain from making false or misleading statements about any member of the jewellery industry.
It is therefore reasonable for the industry to depend on the representative body to operate with the same clarity and discipline.
It cannot be one rule for thee, but not for me!
These concerns sit within a broader pattern. During Sharp’s presidency, Jeweller has repeatedly encountered difficulty obtaining basic information from the association.
For example, prior to Sharp becoming president in 2022, the JAA’s annual financial statements included transparent membership data that could be reconciled against membership income. That practice has ceased.
Membership numbers are no longer made public; begging the question: Why?
Young and Sharp have regularly ignored requests for membership information given the JAA is no longer transparent on the matter.
This was particularly evident around the publication of the 2024 State of the Industry Report.
In 2023 Jeweller emailed Young seeking membership numbers. The reason for the request was because the JAA website was giving the misleading impression that the JAA had a far greater membership than in reality.
By stating the JAA represented "around 650 outlets” it was allowing people to conclude it had 650 members. This was untrue.
Only after enquiries from this publication did the JAA remove the "650 outlets" claim from its website, even though Young never replied with an actual membership figure.
It’s not an isolated example. In August 2024 Sharp was contacted requesting the then-current membership figure and that email was ignored.
The same request was made the following month (September 2024), and yes, you got it - that email was ignored too!
One would think that any industry association would be proud of its membership base and take every opportunity to boast about it.
Given these facts, the lack of a response from the JAA following the questions raised in the 13 January email was not unexpected - it would seem that ‘old habits die hard’ for the JAA.
Correcting the record
Since he requested a correction (3 February), Jeweller has asked Sharp two direct questions regarding the JAA’s misleading conduct over the Apprenticeships Priority List and he has not answered either:
- Why were the efforts of Australia’s three jewellery buying groups not acknowledged in the JAA’s media statement?
- Does the JAA intend to update that statement to reflect their role?
Jeweller has also asserted that, despite implication contained in the JAA’s media release, the association did not play a role in securing the update to the Apprenticeships Priority List.
Sharp has not disputed that assertion.
Why are these issues important? For those paying JAA membership fees and expecting advocacy, these issues go directly to value, relevance, and trust.
They speak directly to governance, transparency, and industry representation — particularly board composition. For many years, the JAA board has not included a representative from the buying groups, even though those groups collectively represent nearly twice as many retailers as the industry association itself.
As also detailed, despite the JAA board recently increasing from six directors to seven, not one board member represents suppliers or manufacturers.
This is despite the JAA claiming it acts for, and represents, all sectors of the Australian jewellery industry.
This contradiction matters because, regardless of the intentions of the media statement released by the JAA, it stripped credit for the initiative from the buying groups - three key industry figures that the JAA must repair relations with if it wishes to be a relevant figure in the broader industry.
Background reading: JAA expands board, seventh director appointed
Perhaps more importantly, there is the ‘hidden message’ in Sharp’s request for clarification.
His email also stated: “As written, the article implies that I was available and chose not to respond. That implication is incorrect and has already led to assumptions being made by readers".
The JAA board and individual directors seem focused on managing ‘perception’ while avoiding substantive questions about process, accountability, and industry leadership.
In other words, the JAA seems to be focused on itself, rather than the wider industry.
Questions about director oversight, internal communication, and decision-making remain unanswered - at a time when the association is reporting declining revenue and rising costs.
Its latest financial statements lodged with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) records a loss of $21,209 for FY24.
For an organisation that exists to represent and advocate for independent jewellery retailers, the way the JAA conducts itself is not a peripheral matter.
The apprenticeship initiative demonstrated what can be achieved when the industry collaborates with clarity and purpose. It should be remembered that the three buying groups are, effectively, competitors and yet they worked together to achieve something that has the potential to benefit almost all jewellery stores.
The controversy that has followed since the JAA ‘joined the conversation’ — and published a misleading impression — has instead highlighted an organisation struggling to reconcile its public messaging with its internal processes.
If the JAA is to reclaim its position as a credible and representative voice for the trade, it will need to shift its focus away from ‘correcting impressions’ about board members toward addressing the structural and governance issues that continue to generate the 'impressions' in the first place.
It's the chicken or the egg syndrome.
The JAA board has, once again, created division within the very industry it is meant to unite.
By appearing to arrogate acclaim from the buying groups that acted in good faith for the benefit of the entire industry, the JAA has simply alienated the very people and groups that it's meant to attract and represent.
If there is any “correction” that Sharp would be better served to address, it surely is the real or perceived mismanagement of the JAA and the continuing division that it creates.
The JAA board is yet to learn that previous misjudgment cannot be corrected by new misjudgement.
More reading
JAA’s confusing statement: Misleading, poor phrasing, or undue credit?
Jewellery apprentices secure access to valuable financial support
JAA expands board, seventh director appointed
JAA detractors must answer some tough questions
A New Chapter: JAA to exhibit at Australian Jewellery Fair in 2026
Changes for JAA board; industry representation issues persist