The manner in which these appointments have been communicated – and, in one case, seemingly obscured – raises questions about transparency at a time in which the JAA is emphasising governance ‘reform’.
Indeed, the JAA has been forthcoming with information about the background of one of its newly co-opted directors, but not about the other, bringing renewed scrutiny to the organisation’s practices.
The JAA board has changed radically over the past four months. It began with the appointment of Lindsay Kotzman as a co-opted independent director in December, followed soon after by Jay Bartlett's resignation in February, citing governance and cultural concerns.
The changes continued at the annual general meeting on 30 March, with two more resignations - Mary Storch and Stephen Schneider. Intriguingly, one week after the AGM, the JAA announced the appointment of Anna Hakman as a second co-opted independent director.
» Background reading: The JAA's possibility of a Great Reset
This meant that at the time of her appointment, the JAA was led by a five-member board, with 40 per cent of the directors having little to no experience in the jewellery industry.
This changed again late last week, when the JAA announced that Natalie Ablahd of Millennium Chain Manufacturing has joined the board as a sixth director.
The appointment of Ablahd marks a step forward for the JAA, as it successfully expands the board for the first time in five years to include a supplier perspective. With that said, questions remain around the significance of the board’s two co-opted directors.
Announcement & Analysis
Interestingly, the board's method of announcement for each co-opted director differs strikingly, and it has been suggested that this may signal inconsistencies in board processes and disclosure standards.
For example, the official announcement about Kotzman was made on 19 December 2025. It stated, "The JAA is pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Lindsay Kotzman as a co-opted Director, effective 18 December 2025.”
On the other hand, when the news about Hakman was published on 7 April 2026, it did not include any reference to her actual appointment date: “The JAA is pleased to announce the appointment of Anna Hakman as a co-opted Director to the Board.” While this may seem like a minor detail on the surface, the omission was intriguing.
Jeweller later confirmed that Hakman was appointed two days after the AGM.
This detail, while eventually verifiable, was not proactively disclosed by the association, which is unusual given the JAA's typical approach. With that said, there are other inconsistencies surrounding Hakman’s appointment.
Both announcements read very similarly and referenced the governance expertise of each newly-appointed director:
- JAA President, Joshua Sharp, welcomed the appointment, noting the value of Mr Kotzman’s skill set to the Association. “Lindsay brings deep expertise in governance, regulatory matters and strategic risk, which will be a valuable addition to the Board as the JAA continues to navigate a complex and evolving industry environment,” Mr Sharp said. [Emphasis added]
- JAA President, Joshua Sharp, welcomed the appointment, saying “Anna brings a depth of governance and strategic experience that will significantly strengthen the Board. Her ability to navigate complex environments and provide clear, risk-aware guidance aligns strongly with the JAA’s priorities as we continue to evolve and deliver value for members and industry.” [Emphasis added]
The news of Kotzman’s appointment detailed his professional position at P&B Law in Melbourne. Similarly, the ‘About Board’ webpage on the JAA website lists Kotzman as ‘Founding Partner, P&B Law’. See image below.
Strangely, no such details are provided for Hakman. The official announcement made no mention of her current employment, and the ‘About Board’ webpage also omits this information.
Unlike all other directors, who are profiled on this webpage with their relevant employment and/or company information as shown below, Hakman is only listed as a ‘Strategic Governance Leader.’
As previously reported, a LinkedIn profile details Hakman’s appointment as a ‘non-executive director’ to the JAA. It also highlights her membership with the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD).
This profile also indicated that Hakman is employed at Monash University, having been appointed in February to the full-time position of ‘Strategic Initiatives and Governance’.
Jeweller contacted Monash University on 29 April regarding Hakman's position. The university's response did not confirm or deny her employment, and at the time of publication, Jeweller is still awaiting clarification.
Behind the scenes, the strategy regarding the two co-opted directors has also differed in their willingness or ability to answer basic questions about their backgrounds.
In December, Jeweller contacted Kotzman with several questions about how he came to join the JAA board.
He responded and explained that, while he is a lawyer, “My connection with the jewellery industry spans generations, by way of a family history heavily involved in the jewellery industry. This family history has fostered a lifelong fascination with jewellery.”
He also added that he “was recommended to the position by a friend that works in the field of director placements. I went through a standard selection process and was approved by the Board.”
When asked, Kotzman confirmed that he and his ‘friend’ have no professional or personal connection to any current or past directors.
Unlike Kotzman, Hakman has not responded to similar questions pertaining to her appointment and her position on the board.
Indeed, Hakman has chosen to ignore similar questions about the circumstances behind her appointment and whether a current director approached her or if the approach was made via a third party.
While Kotzman was forthcoming concerning his appointment, Hakman has remained silent on this simple yet relevant information.
Where there is smoke ...
Past governance issues provide important context for assessing current board practices. It goes without saying that JAA members and the wider jewellery industry have a reasonable expectation that there are no conflicts of interest or director-related relationships, so that the board can operate with full transparency and professional governance.
Jeweller has been particularly interested in how the JAA has handled the appointment of these two co-opted independent directors, given the controversy surrounding former co-opted director Meredith Doig, who Kotzman replaced.
Doig’s appointment to the board was announced on 1 September 2022. Again, unlike with Hakman, the JAA announcement provided a specific commencement date for Doig - 23 August - and also detailed her governance expertise.
“Joining the Board is Dr Meredith Doig OAM FAICD, a professional company director and governance consultant,” the statement read.
However, when Jeweller sought information from Doig about the circumstances of her appointment, it was established that she was not fully forthcoming in her answers.
While Doig was simultaneously promoted as an independent co-opted director with governance expertise, a subsequent investigation by Jeweller established that she had a professional relationship with JAA vice president, Ronnie Bauer.
It was later discovered that Doig was registered as a company secretary with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for one of Bauer’s private companies.
These details were not disclosed in the JAA’s announcement, and Doig did not volunteer the information to Jeweller at the time, even though her governance and ethics credentials were promoted in the announcement.
It read: "Meredith is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and for five years taught their flagship Company Directors Course. For 10 years she was a Moderator with the Cranlana Programme on Ethics and The Good Society." [Emphasis added]
Background reading: Queries over JAA governance standards
Similarly, Hakman’s LinkedIn profile states she is a Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (GAICD). This membership level recognises individuals who have successfully completed the AICD Company Directors Course, demonstrating high competency and expertise in corporate governance.
At a minimum, the precedent involving Doig underscores the importance of full disclosure by the JAA when appointing ‘independent’ directors. It would seem that Hakman has chosen silence over transparency concerning the circumstances of her appointment.
As a Graduate of the AICD, Hakman will be aware that the institute's core purpose is “to strengthen society through world-class governance. It is important that we lead by example in how our organisation is governed, the decisions and actions we take and the way we conduct ourselves in achieving this purpose.”
Making a good first impression
Given her corporate governance expertise and her appointment as a co-opted director, Hakman was asked about the demonstrably false claims the board made the day before her appointment.
As previously reported, the JAA claimed it had lost money on two occasions in the past decade; however, Jeweller easily confirmed it had lost $190,000 over four financial years.
The timing of these events places particular weight on Hakman's role as an incoming independent voice.
Specifically, as a co-opted director, Hakman has been asked on two occasions whether she considered it appropriate for the JAA to issue a retraction and/or correction.
Not only has Hakman remained silent on this important governance and transparency matter, the JAA board - of which she is now a member - has not retracted or corrected the claim that the association incurred an annual loss on only two occasions over the past decade.
Hakman would be governed by the AICD’s Membership Code of Conduct, which states:
- “The member has an obligation to be independent in judgement and actions and to take all reasonable steps to be satisfied as to the soundness of all decisions taken by the board of directors.”
Following Jeweller's unanswered questions regarding the JAA's decision to publish false claims - and the circumstances behind her board appointment two days after the AGM - Hakman was asked if she supports the core values published on the JAA website.
These include:
- “We are committed to ethics by way of demonstrating professionalism, transparency and fairness in our dealings and conduct”
- “We work to build trust, truthfulness and credibility through consistent actions and words.”
[Bold emphasis is original JAA text]
At the time of publication, Hakman had not responded. Similarly, the JAA has not explained the false or misleading claims regarding its financial affairs over the past decade, nor has it corrected or retracted the statement.
What emerges from these developments is not simply a question of who sits on the JAA board, but how the organisation defines and demonstrates governance in practice.
For members, the contrast between the board’s stated commitment to “truthfulness and credibility” and its handling of basic disclosure issues over many years would be difficult to reconcile.
It remains a mystery as to why Hakman’s position at Monash University was not detailed in the JAA announcement on 7 April. It is also unusual to list the current employer of all board members except one, especially given the previously undisclosed company relationships between board members beginning in 2022.
Further, despite being contacted twice, it remains a mystery why Monash University management has not confirmed Hakman’s LinkedIn profile, despite acknowledging the correspondence.
Director governance is not only about expertise; it also includes accountability, transparency, and a willingness to address legitimate scrutiny. Until these concerns are addressed directly, the JAA’s recent board changes may do little to resolve the broader questions they have brought to the fore.
More reading
The JAA’s Great Reset: The good thing about hitting rock bottom…
JAA’s newest director selects silence on false claims
JAA’s suppliers failure leads to false claims and more controversy
JAA Board: Two more resignations; second co-opted director appointed
Train wreck: JAA’s Supplier Sub Committee does more harm than good