KEY POINTS
JAA's Failed Supplier Sub Committee • Committee ill-conceived
The Jewellers Association of Australia (JAA) tried and failed to launch a sub-committee dedicated to suppliers and wholesalers in the local trade. • Transparency test failed
The JAA requested confidential and commercially sensitive information from Expertise Events as an industry 'stakeholder'; however, it refused to divulge simple information in return, including the current number of supplier members. • Interesting communication strategy
The JAA protested the release of emails related to the Supplier Sub-Committee and, knowing that Jeweller was investigating, released a mystifying media statement attempting to 'get ahead' of the matter. • JIN & JAA
The commercial relationship between the JAA and Laura Moore of Jewellery Industry Network was a subject of contention during discussions around the Supplier Sub Committee. The JAA refused to clarify the matter, instead choosing to resort to legal terminology. See Epilogue. |
The purpose of the JAA Supplier Sub Committee was to deal with “issues affecting the supplier sector of the industry”, including the division and “duplication of effort [expense]” caused by two jewellery trade fairs being conducted in Sydney.
While these are undoubtedly topics of great interest within the industry, JAA president Joshua Sharp confirmed that the committee “was unable to progress its work and did not reach any outcome”.
Among the correspondence recently obtained by Jeweller is a back-and-forth exchange over a four-month period between Sharp, JAA administrator Kerrie Campbell and three others regarding a list of problems for the Supplier Sub Committee to address.
The lengthy correspondence between the group, covering as many as 30 emails, demonstrates poor management and ineffective communication.
It also puts the JAA’s lack of transparency on full display and some responses have resulted in the use of legal terminology. (see ‘Epilogue’ below)
After becoming aware that the extensive correspondence would be provided to Jeweller, Sharp made it clear that he objected to their release and did not want them to become public.
Furthermore, having become aware that Jeweller was investigating this matter, the JAA attempted to pre-emptively ‘get ahead of the issue’ by publishing a media statement on its website on 30 January 2026 - nine months after the Supplier Sub Committee was formed.
In other words, having announced on its website in April 2025 the need for, and the importance of, supporting local jewellery suppliers, the JAA published nothing else about the Supplier Sub Committee for nine months.
For JAA members, the abrupt publication of a media statement about a Supplier Sub Committee, which had not been publicly acknowledged since its formation, was undoubtedly mystifying.
No second chances to make a first impression
Indeed, from the outset, the JAA had great difficulty organising various people to meet. After having to cancel one meeting, staff rescheduled a second meeting for the group to meet online via Microsoft Teams.
On the day of the meeting, the participants waited for it to begin, only to discover that JAA staff had given the wrong link to the group: a Zoom meeting link, and not a Teams link, was provided in error.
Apologies were made and a third meeting was then scheduled, which eventually never took place. In effect, it meant that the problems facing industry suppliers had been abandoned by the JAA.
In response to questions about the Supplier Sub Committee beginning in December last year, Sharp told Jeweller: “The Committee was unable to progress to a formal meeting phase or adopt any findings, and therefore no outcome or position was reached.”
With the benefit of hindsight, the committee was doomed from the outset because it was ill-conceived. Indeed, the email correspondence appears to show that the JAA had not considered to what degree it was part of the problem it was attempting to solve. Indeed, some of the questions raised by the JAA seem absurd.
Before we look at why it failed, we must first ask why there was a need for a Supplier Sub Committee in the first place.
The answer to that question lies in the fact that the JAA board has no director representing suppliers. As Jeweller has previously reported, the JAA board does not reflect the broader Australian jewellery industry and has not done so since 2022.
Despite the fact that JAA’s About Us webpage states, ”The JAA works nationally to represent and protect the interests of the jewellery industry … the JAA covers all areas of the jewellery industry – from manufacturing, wholesaling, distribution to retail”, the board has not had a supplier or buying group director since it changed its constitution.
By way of example, the JAA board was recently expanded from six directors to seven, and two do not work in the industry, and the remaining five are retailers - none were suppliers.
This fact, coupled with the JAA’s attempt to form a committee to represent suppliers, which failed, explains many things about the operation and management of the JAA and the board.
Serious lack of transparency
On 10 April 2025, the JAA published a news item on its website entitled: ‘JAA welcomes new directors and unveils exciting updates for 2025.’
The article states that the JAA board is pleased to announce “the formation of a dedicated Supplier Subcommittee, established to better represent and respond to the evolving needs of Australian suppliers. This initiative will provide a structured platform for open dialogue, feedback, and collaboration on key industry matters — including trade fairs and other shared challenges.”
The statement added that: “Initial discussions have been productive, and the Board looks forward to building on this momentum to drive positive outcomes for the supplier community.”
The emails provided to Jeweller show that during these initial discussions, Sharp was asked for some straightforward information.
He was asked many times for the number of industry suppliers that are members of the JAA. The information request was reasonable given that the JAA Supplier Sub Committee’s mission was to deal with “issues affecting the supplier sector of the industry”.
It would be a good starting point for the people involved in addressing the alleged “issues”. However, Sharp ignored the requests, and finally, on 28 May 2025, he refused to provide the membership number.
He wrote, “We won’t be providing the membership breakdowns or business data requested, as these are outside the scope of the discussion and meeting purpose.”
As an interesting aside, the most important item in the 10 April 2025 statement was the announcement of two new JAA directors.
It read: “The JAA is pleased to welcome Jay Bartlett, and Stephen Schneider as our newest board members. Jay and Stephen bringing a wealth of knowledge and insight that will enhance the Board’s collective knowledge and support the ongoing work of the JAA in serving and strengthening the Australian jewellery industry.”
Ironically, Bartlett lasted less than 12 months as a director. He quit last month (9 February 2026), citing his frustration with the JAA’s culture and approach to governance.
He told Jeweller, “I formed the view that the current culture and governance approach were not aligned with how I believe meaningful progress is best achieved. Rather than continue in a role where I could not contribute as intended, I chose to step aside.”
Another example of the JAA’s lack of transparency under Sharp included Jeweller’s questions about when and how many times the Supplier Sub Committee met. The information was not provided.
Give nothing, get nothing
The initial discussions about the JAA Supplier Sub Committee began around January 2025. The central purpose of the committee was to supposedly address the industry division created by the two jewellery fairs in Sydney.
In March, Sharp set out to contact ‘industry stakeholders’ regarding “the duplication of effort” and the division caused by a second jewellery fair in Sydney.
It should be noted that, while the JAA was supposedly concerned about the continuing industry division from competing shows, the JAA had endorsed, supported, and helped launch the ‘second’ fair, organised by the former JAA vice president, Laura Moore’s Jewellery Industry Network.
The organiser of the International Jewellery Fair, Gary Fitz-Roy, managing director of Expertise Events, was contacted for his feedback and input for the committee. He agreed to meet with Sharp and two leading industry suppliers.
Background reading: Lack of transparency over JAA financial reports
This was the group of people who were given the wrong link for a meeting scheduled for 7 May, which had to be rescheduled. Around the time the next meeting was to take place, Fitz-Roy requested an agenda.
Sharp provided four topics he wanted to discuss. The first was “the number of jewellery fairs per year considered viable for the industry” and their timing and location. Item three was ‘Future Plans’ specifically: “Any upcoming plans relevant to supplier participation in fairs.”
Sharp’s fourth agenda item was ‘Pathways Forward’: “Exploration of constructive solutions to current duplication of efforts regarding industry fairs.”
Fitz-Roy’s response was that Expertise Events had not created the “current duplication of efforts”, given that the Sydney trade show had been running for 30 years. He suggested that that was an issue for Moore to answer.
However, Agenda item #3, ‘Future Plans’, was of greater concern. It seemingly had not occurred to Sharp that what he was effectively asking for was Expertise Event’s future and/or confidential plans while, at the same time, the JAA was supporting the competing show.
The information request was ill-considered and suggests the Supplier Sub Committee was ill-conceived. Or at least ill-equipped to solve any “issues”.
The email correspondence shows that Expertise Events was expected to provide information about future plans for its Sydney trade show, while, simultaneously, Sharp refused to advise Fitz-Roy and the two industry suppliers of basic information, such as how many wholesalers are members of the JAA.
Conflict of interest
The records show that Fitz-Roy subsequently provided a range of information and answers to each of Sharp’s four agenda items.
As for the request about Expertise Events’ future plans, he responded: “We are well known for our innovations. We have a major one coming up. That said, they are relevant to suppliers (not the JAA) and will be announced (to exhibitors) when appropriate.”
He also addressed his concern about the JAA’s involvement and association with Laura Moore and the Jewellery Industry Network.
Fitz-Roy had previously raised the matter with JAA administrator Kerrie Campbell, another person involved in the email correspondence, saying that he believed the JAA financially supported Jewellery Industry Network and that Moore was doing or had done consulting work for the JAA.
He wrote, “A quick look at the JAA website shows this embedded relationship.”
Sharp replied on 16 May, denying any financial relationship between the JAA and Moore; however, Fitz-Roy further questioned the relationship.
This led to Sharp stating: “I confirm, to the best of my knowledge and during my time as President (October 2022-present), Ms Moore and her associated businesses have not received any financial benefit from the JAA, other than reimbursement of expenses directly related to an event in relation to the JAA Jewellery Awards.”
He also told Fitz-Roy that, as president, he was not aware of any instance in which Moore or her businesses were engaged to undertake any work, including acting as a consultant.
Sharp also addressed the period before he was appointed president; he joined the board in 2021 and was appointed president in October 2022.
He wrote, "As for the period prior to my presidency, I am unable to speak with certainty and would prefer to use mine [sic] and JAA staff time effectively, rather than diverting resources to review historical matters that have no bearing on the purpose of our proposed meeting.”
No meeting, no outcome
The correspondence and disagreement continued, leading Fitz-Roy to raise issues that further illustrate that the Supplier Sub Committee was misjudged.
The topics centred around the JAA’s authority to impact any outcome, given that he had been running the International Jewellery Fair at the one location for 30 years and that the JAA had decided to support a second competing event.
Fitz-Roy told Sharp, “I’m still happy to meet with the Supplier Sub Committee”, and then asked a question that Sharp might not have anticipated.
He posed a scenario where, if there was evidence that the two Sydney fairs were causing a “duplication of effort” for JAA suppliers and members, would Sharp and the JAA stop endorsing and supporting the Jewellery Industry Network event?
This hypothetical demonstrated the JAA’s conundrum.
Sharp did not answer.
Background reading: JAA director quits over governance and culture issues
Fitz-Roy's email, dated 23 June - four months after being invited to attend a Supplier Sub Committee Meeting - ended by saying, “I hope we can work towards better outcomes for industry suppliers.”
There is no record of Sharp responding, and the meeting never took place.
Instead, it appears the Supplier Sub Committee was quietly abandoned because once Jeweller made initial enquiries and requested information early this year, the JAA suddenly published an announcement on 30 January.
Nine months after the Supplier Sub Committee was announced, the 170-word announcement titled ‘Statement regarding Supplier Sub Committee’ is mystifying.
According to the JAA, it:
- Was not a formally constituted committee
- It did not have decision-making authority
- Was unable to progress its work
- Was unable to progress to a formal meeting phase
- Did not reach any outcome
- Did not adopt, endorse or publish any findings or positions on behalf of the JAA
Rather than resolve the years of industry division created by a second Sydney jewellery fair - supported and endorsed by the JAA - the Supplier Sub Committee seems to have done more harm than good.
Epilogue: Legal speak
In February, as part of the research for this report, Jeweller contacted JAA operations manager Megan Young regarding the association’s ‘alleged’ connections with Jewellery Industry Network.
While JAA president Joshua Sharp has denied any relationship during his term, a number of claims have been raised during Jeweller’s investigation.
Young has been with the JAA for around 20 years and served under many presidents; as such, her knowledge dates back much further than Sharp, who first joined the JAA board as a director in 2021.
On 9 February, Young was asked the following: “We would like to confirm that you, specifically, were concerned about Ms Moore being appointed to undertake work for, and on behalf of, the JAA sometime after resigning as Vice President.
“We understand that you, as Operations Manager, did not necessarily support Ms Moore's involvement with the JAA and the board, and one of your concerns was the fees she was being paid.
“Could you please confirm that this is accurate - that you did not support Ms Moore and her businesses providing consulting services to the JAA?”
Young’s response is quite intriguing. On 10 February, she replied:
- “No comment.The decision to refrain from providing comment should not be interpreted as an admission of the truth, accuracy, or validity of any statements or allegations made. Silence or non-response must not be construed as acceptance, agreement, or acquiescence to the content or implications of the claims presented."
On 11 February, Young was asked to confirm another matter.
“As Operations Manager, you would also be aware that of the current seven-member board, only two directors - current President Joshua Sharp and current Vice President Ronnie Bauer - held board positions around the time that Laura Moore and/or her businesses were involved with the JAA.”
She responded, “No comment.”
And, again, she repeated:
- “The decision to refrain from providing comment should not be interpreted as an admission of the truth, accuracy, or validity of any statements or allegations made. Silence or non-response must not be construed as acceptance, agreement, or acquiescence to the content or implications of the claims presented.”
More reading
JAA in the bad books after failing to explain financial shortfall
Crushing blow: JAA director confirms shock resignation
JAA’s Correction Request: Rules for thee, but not me
JAA’s confusing statement: Misleading, poor phrasing, or undue credit?
JAA detractors must answer some tough questions
A New Chapter: JAA to exhibit at Australian Jewellery Fair in 2026