Earlier this year, widespread doubt over the legitimacy of the JAA’s explanation of its 2024 financial performance ended in further embarrassment for the embattled trade body, and its most recent financial filing with government regulators appears to have vindicated those doubts.
In short, the JAA continues to face consistently declining membership income and total revenue, with this situation further worsened as staffing costs increase simultaneously.
In case you missed it
The JAA has previously faced several controversies around its financial reporting and governance.
Most recently, the industry body attempted to embellish its trading results with a statement designed to explain away a loss in the 2024 calendar year, which ended with the JAA issuing a correction.
It should be noted that the JAA changed its annual reporting in 2022.
It previously operated under financial year (FY) reporting, from 1 July to 30 June. It switched to calendar year (CY) reporting, from 1 January to 31 December.
The JAA lodged its financial accounts with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) covering CY24 on 27 June 2025.
The accounts showed a $103,651 decline in membership income and an annual trading loss of -$21,209.
This represented a -$42,035 decline in profitability from the previous year (2023).
After publishing its CY24 results to members, the JAA issued a statement attempting to explain that the negative trading result was only “a loss on paper” – and, by extension, suggesting there was no ‘real loss’ for the year.
The statement attempted to mask the real result: “It is important to emphasise that this is not a material or operational loss. Rather, the adjustment defers income from late 2024 into the 2025 calendar year, and does not reflect any change in the financial stability of the organisation”. (Emphasis added)
Jeweller reported on the results in February, highlighting that, among many other issues with the statement, the reference to a “loss on paper” appeared to be a misuse of investment terminology that had no bearing on the JAA’s trading performance.
In the article, an accompanying table showed a 41 per cent decline in membership income from $252,255 in 2023 to $148,574 in 2024.
In late March, the JAA decided to go on the attack. In an attempt to imply its financial affairs were sound, the JAA board issued a new statement saying, “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 response on 31 March to Jeweller’s reporting included demonstrably false assertions and caused the industry body further embarrassment.
Firstly, over the past decade, the JAA has reported losses in four financial years - not two.
As the accompanying Table 4a demonstrates, the JAA recorded a -$13,878 loss in FY2016, a -$107,267 loss in FY2017, and a -$48,244 loss in FY2019. Following its switch to a calendar year reporting schedule, the JAA recorded a fourth loss of -$21,209 in CY2024.
Two weeks later, the JAA issued an ignominious correction.
On 14 April, the JAA board published the following: “The JAA wishes to clarify that a previous reference to the number of loss-making years over the past decade was misstated due to an inadvertent error.”
It added: “This clarification does not alter the Association’s overall financial position or direction.”
Putting aside this misguided commentary about its financial affairs, the second and more concerning matter was that the JAA board attempted to claim that the CY24 loss (-$21,209) was “attributable to clearly identifiable and explainable factors."
This was an intriguing statement which raised an obvious question. If the loss was clearly identifiable and explainable, why was the JAA choosing not to identify or explain it to members in its statements?
Subsequent requests to JAA president Joshua Sharp seeking clarification about these "clearly identifiable and explainable factors” and the so-called “accounting adjustment” were met with silence.
Truth comes out
This brings us to the more recent 2025 financial accounts, lodged with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission in April.
At first glance, the trading results appear positive. The JAA recorded a $17,334 profit in CY25 compared with a -$21,209 loss in CY2024. This profit comes from total annual revenue of $225,237 in CY25, a sharp increase from $156,787 in CY24. (Table 2a)
That said, these figures mask a concerning outcome stemming from the JAA’s error-prone or nonexistent application of accrual accounting in CY24.
For clarification, the JAA board previously explained that it would “implement an accounting adjustment - now to be applied annually - ensuring that income, such as membership fees received in advance of 1 January, is recognised in the financial year to which it applies”.
The problem with this statement was that if correct accrual accounting was practised each year, no "adjustment" would be required.
For this reason, and to gain a more accurate picture of the JAA’s financial affairs, the CY24 and CY25 years must be averaged due to the JAA’s claim about its “accounting adjustment”.
The CY24 loss (-$21,209) and the CY25 profit ($17,334) must be viewed as an aggregate - adding them together to even out the result.
Therefore, the financial result over the two years is a loss of -$3,685, or the average result for each year is a loss of -$1,843. (See Table 4b)
Applying the same metric, JAA membership income has fallen by 28 per cent.
In FY23 the industry body’s membership income reached $252,225, while membership income as an average across CY24 and CY25 was just $181,487 – an annual average decline of -$70,738. (See Table 2b)
Indeed, the JAA’s accounting records show that since Sharp’s appointment as president in October 2022, membership income has fallen by 18 per cent while total revenue has fallen 19 per cent.
The JAA’s claim that an “accounting adjustment” required in CY24 resulted in a “paper loss” - or what the Board described as “not a material or operational loss” - was always spurious.
Widespread doubt over the legitimacy of these claims is now strengthened by the fact that, taking into account the CY25 result, the JAA has recorded an operational loss of -$3,685 over the two years.
The impact of consistently declining membership income and total revenue is worsened by the continued increase in staffing costs, which have risen by 10 per cent since CY23.
In short, less money is coming in, and more money is going out.
Jeweller contacted JAA president Joshua Sharp to request the organisation’s latest membership figures; however, no response was received.
Under previous presidents, the JAA had transparently published its membership information as part of its financial reporting; however, this practice ended during Sharp’s presidency.
More reading
JAA in the bad books after failing to explain financial shortfall
False claims corrected; JAA chalks it up to "inadvertent" error
Mystery: The tale of two independent JAA directors
The JAA’s Great Reset: The good thing about hitting rock bottom…
Train wreck: JAA’s Supplier Sub Committee does more harm than good