Last month, Jeweller reported on the JAA’s failed attempt to establish a Supplier Sub Committee. The JAA announced the launch of the project in April 2025 and, in December, JAA president Joshua Sharp conceded that it had been abandoned without achieving any form of tangible objective or result.
Worse still, the project's mismanagement damaged relationships with event organisers and suppliers.
Following Jeweller’s report, which was published on 10 March, the JAA released a media statement titled ‘Clarification regarding JAA Suppliers Sub Committee’; however, and as has so often been the case for the association in recent years, the board merely fanned the flames rather than extinguishing the fire.
Not only does the JAA media statement rather blatantly misrepresent events, but it also includes demonstrably false claims about the association’s financial affairs. Before detailing these misrepresentations, it’s important to understand how this came about.
The JAA Supplier Sub Committee was supposedly intended to address a range of issues facing the industry, including a focus on the so-called ‘duplication’ of trade shows; namely, the International Jewellery Fair (Expertise Events) and the Jewellery Industry Fair (Jewellery Industry Network), both hosted in Sydney.
The JAA was concerned about the industry fallout and the perception of its support for a second Sydney jewellery trade show (Jewellery Industry Fair), scheduled to run on the same weekend as the ‘traditional’ Expertise Events fair.
To address the concerns of leading industry suppliers, the JAA formed the subcommittee; however, a long list of poor decisions and ‘self-inflicted wounds’ – including widespread uncertainty over who was even a member of the committee - led to Sharp conceding that the committee “was unable to progress its work and did not reach any outcome”.
As part of Jeweller’s reporting on the matter, it was noted that for several years the JAA has not had a director on its board representing jewellery industry suppliers, despite its website claiming to represent ‘all sectors’ of the trade.
The JAA's 31 March 2026 media statement was a delayed response to a letter from Expertise Events distributed weeks earlier, dated 12 March 2026, which was addressed to jewellery industry suppliers and wholesalers.
It was signed by managing director Gary Fitz-Roy and includes the following prelude: “Please find a letter for your attention regarding recent media coverage concerning the JAA and in particular Expertise Events and myself. We felt it important to share our position directly with our valued partners and provide some context around the current discussion.”
Fitz-Roy’s letter followed the aforementioned Jeweller report (10 March), which detailed the machinations of the JAA’s failed attempt to launch a Supplier Sub Committee. There was confusion and disagreement about the project from the outset, and at one stage, Fitz-Roy proposed making all correspondence available to Jeweller as background information for the article.
His subsequent letter explained to industry suppliers the terms and conditions upon which he had provided Jeweller with the full correspondence between himself and Sharp. These conditions were imposed so that the emails would be used to accurately report on the controversy.
Conversely, Sharp objected to the release of the emails.
Washing their hands
The JAA’s subsequent media statement following Fitz-Roy’s letter amounts to an attempt to willfully misrepresent the circumstances of the Supplier Sub Committee’s failure. This is best understood by comparing the language used by the JAA before and after the project.
For example, consider how the JAA initially announced the launch of the Supplier Sub Committee in April 2025, and how this wording changed following its abandonment.
On 10 April, the JAA issued a statement which reads: “The JAA Board is also 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. Initial discussions have been productive, and the Board looks forward to building on this momentum to drive positive outcomes for the supplier community.” [Emphasis added]
On first reading, it would be reasonable to assume that the JAA had taken proactive steps to create a dedicated, structured platform for the benefit of industry suppliers, for which it was rightly seeking credit.
During the research for the March 10 article, Sharp and Fitz-Roy were each asked a range of questions about the Supplier Sub Committee, and it soon became apparent that there was disagreement on several important matters.
Fitz-Roy asserted that Sharp’s recollection of events was inaccurate. He offered to provide the complete email correspondence to support his views, stating that he had nothing to hide.
Conversely, Sharp objected to the release of the emails. This exchange took place in December 2025 and January 2026.
Fast forward to the association’s most recent media statement on 31 March, and the JAA appears to ‘disown’ the Supplier Sub Committee entirely.
Indeed, the wording has changed significantly. Now, the Supplier Sub Committee should not be seen as proactive drive by the JAA board, in fact it “did not originate as a formal JAA initiative”.
Having conceded that the project failed, it would seem that, despite the language used in the initial announcement, responsibility for the project's failure lies with something or someone other than the JAA itself.
“The idea arose following conversations with a number of suppliers within the industry who expressed concerns about the increasing number and timing of trade fairs in Australia, among other supplier related matters,” the latest JAA statement suggested. [Emphasis added]
“Several suppliers indicated that overlapping or closely scheduled fairs in the same city may not be sustainable for a trade of our size.”
While the JAA’s attempts to distance itself first reached the public arena on 10 March, when questions were first asked about the Supplier Sub Committee in late December - nine months after its announcement - the board was already showing signs of a ‘changing tune’.
Indeed, this change in attitude towards the committee was curious, given that the JAA had not publicly acknowledged the project since its announcement. It begged the question: What changed?
As noted in the previous report, the JAA attempted to ‘get ahead’ of the issue in late January when, having received the first questions from Jeweller, it published a media statement offering some clarification on the circumstances surrounding the project.
The media statement after Jeweller's questions was published on 31 January, and suggested that the dedicated Supplier Sub Committee was only an "informal working group”.
So much for the JAA's so-called ‘structured platform’ - it was now being reframed as a ‘forum for discussion’.
It is a total reversal and, in fact, completely disavows the outcome and failure.
Sounds oddly familiar…
While the JAA has attempted to control the conversation around the failure of the Supplier Sub Committee, it has unintentionally sent other messages.
When the project began, it was the JAA that informed the industry about the work underway and the JAA's objectives for the committee.
When the project failed and was abandoned, it was time to label the Supplier Sub Committee as ‘informal’ and, whether wilfully or inadvertently, pass the blame to someone or something else.
It’s a strategy that conjures reminders of another recent JAA public relations ‘fumble’, this time involving the buying groups – Nationwide Jewellers, Showcase Jewellers, and the Independent Jewellers Collective – three prominent figures in the trade that, like suppliers and wholesalers, have minimal, if any, involvement with the JAA.
Over the past 12 months, the buying groups collaborated to lobby the Federal Government to add jewellery apprentices to the Australian Apprenticeships Priority List, thereby opening the industry to a wide range of sponsored benefits.
After the campaign proved successful, the JAA attempted to join the ‘victory lap’ by publishing a media statement confirming the details of the government’s change. This statement omitted any mention of the buying groups and even suggested that anyone with questions about the changes should contact the JAA.
Background reading: JAA causes jewellery apprentice controversy
Based on the language used by the JAA, readers could be forgiven for believing that the JAA itself was responsible for the result.
JAA president Joshua Sharp has been asked how the organisation intends to address the perception of this incident across the broader industry – namely, whether his board will amend its website statement to acknowledge the work of the buying groups.
Instead, Sharp requested a ‘correction’ to the initial reporting, which merely served to highlight the JAA’s inability to adhere to its own media policy, and, according to the buying groups, despite being proactively contacted, the JAA has not engaged with them in any meaningful way on the jewellery apprentices campaign.
In the case of the Supplier Sub Committee, the JAA initially appeared to take credit for its creation, yet when it failed, the board disavowed responsibility.
On the other hand, the JAA seemingly attempted to claim credit for the jewellery apprentices’ support initiative after it had been completed.
Both examples suggest that, at least on the surface, the JAA’s approach to responsibility and public relations is wildly misguided.
Accounting errors & PR nightmares
Fitz-Roy’s 12 March letter to wholesalers about the Supplier Sub Committee also raised questions about the JAA’s financial affairs.
He wrote: "Against that background, it has been noted in recent reporting that the Jewellers Association of Australia has recorded losses over the past decade. Many suppliers who contributed to building those reserves may reasonably question how those funds have subsequently been managed.” [Emphasis added]
The JAA’s response on 31 March attempted to clarify “the suggestion the Association has recorded losses over the past decade”; however, in doing so, the JAA made false claims.
Its statement reads: “The Association has been financially stable overall, with the limited instances of two reported losses attributable to clearly identifiable and explainable factors.” [Emphasis added]
The JAA’s assertion is verifiably false. Firstly, over the past decade, the JAA has reported losses on four occasions - not two.
As the accompanying table demonstrates, in Financial Year (FY) 2016, the JAA recorded a $13,878 loss and in FY2017, a $107,267 loss, while in FY2019, there was a $48,244 loss. The most recent financial report for the 2024 calendar year (CY) records a fourth loss of $21,209.
How the JAA arrived at “two reported losses over the past decade” is mystifying. Either it’s a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the facts, or it’s an error.
If the latter, one must ask how the falsehood was not identified by JAA Treasurer Daniel Anania and/or Lindsay Kotzman, the newly appointed co-opted director, who was appointed because of his regulatory compliance, governance and risk management experience.
Putting aside the board's misguided commentary, the second and more concerning matter is that the JAA claims that the recent loss is “attributable to clearly identifiable and explainable factors."
Background reading: JAA in the financial 'bad books'
This is intriguing because, if the loss is clearly identifiable and explainable, the JAA has bizarrely chosen not to identify or explain it in a transparent manner.
Following the filing of its Financial Report with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), the JAA posted a website article titled: ‘2024 Financial performance update - clarification on accouting [sic] adjustment.’
The JAA falsely claimed that the 2024 result was a "loss on paper”; however, as previously reported, there is no such thing; a loss is a loss.
The JAA claims the loss resulted from an “accounting adjustment” — implemented to correct a previous error - but refuses to detail the dollar figure of the errors in the previous year (2023).
Jeweller has raised several questions regarding the accounting mistakes, which were rectified in 2024, but the JAA refuses to identify the amount or provide an adequate explanation of the errors.
So much for being clearly identifiable!
Background reading: Director quits over culture and governance issues
Fitz-Roy's letter stated the facts - the JAA "has recorded losses over the past decade”.
It was a simple statement, and there was no need for the JAA to clarify or attempt to repudiate the matter; however, having done so, the board went on to - and is now on record as - making various false claims about its financial affairs.
The four JAA losses over the past decade - not two - amount to more than $190,000, while, at the same time, members have not been informed about the specifics of recent accounting errors, noting that it’s not the first time that the JAA board has found itself embroiled in controversy over error-ridden accounting records.
It would behove Sharp and the board to correct this false claim.
Where do we go from here?
The JAA undoubtedly faces an unenviable task moving forward. Repairing industry relationships with the buying groups, suppliers, and event organisers is challenging, yet necessary.
Fortunately, the JAA has announced it will attend the Australian Jewellery Fair later this month in Adelaide, which, with all of the relevant parties in attendance, will be an ideal opportunity to begin moving in the right direction.
The only question is whether the JAA board - which has now shrunk to a mere three ‘industry people’ - will accept the opportunity in Adelaide, or whether president Joshua Sharp, vice-president Ronnie Bauer, and treasurer Daniel Anania will continue to demonstrably fail Public Relations 101.
More reading
Train wreck: JAA’s Supplier Sub Committee does more harm than good
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?