With just 888 days to go before the mulesing phase out, major questions have been raised about the wool industry's management of the controversial practice.
After receiving answers to a Senate estimates hearing in late May regarding Australian Wool Innovation's handling of the mulesing issue, Senator Bill Heffernan said there were more questions than answers on the subject.
"About half a billion dollars has been spent by AWI over the last six years and there does not appear to be much to show for it," Senator Heffernan said.
"The answers I have received this week are a partial confirmation of our gravest concerns and beg a lot more questions."
Former WoolProducers president Robert Pietsch said the entire wool industry would like to have seen a greater return from the 2pc wool levies each grower paid, but added time was running out for the industry to work together.
"We desperately need more unity and sense of purpose because if we don't, I can tell you the next generation is not interested in wool and we will continue to see the rapid decline of this industry as more question what they are doing."
Mr Pietsch said the development of plastic breech and tail clips as an alternative to mulesing was progressing well but he was disappointed the technology had not been commercialised yet.
While AWI have stuck by its stance that the plastic breech and tail clips it has developed, will be a viable and cost-effective alternative to mulesing, Senator Heffernan wants to know more about the decision to end mulesing some four years ago.
It has been revealed this week that of the 36 people that met and decided to phase out mulesing in a Sydney Hotel on 8 November 2004, about two-thirds are not recognised woolgrowers.
The meeting was dominated by organisations that service woolgrowers such as the Australian Wool Exchange, Australian Wool Testing Authority, Australian Wool Processors Council, Australian Wool Selling Brokers, Livecorp, Woolmark, Australian Wool Innovation and the Australian Wool Industries Secretariat.
Of the 36 people named as attending the meeting, only 10 can be clearly identified as woolgrowers, representing State and national farming organisations.
Mr Pietsch, who was at the meeting, said whilst many service organisations were represented, it was only those representing woolgrowers that voted on the phase out.
AWI has also revealed that between 2004 and 2007 it spent $23 million on corporate affairs, including costs associated with fighting animal rights groups.
In that same time $84 million was spent on off farm product development and marketing and $92 million developing on-farm, wool production projects.
Last financial year AWI spent 13pc of budget on salaries and Woolmark spent a massive 52pc of its income on salaries and superannuation.
"Any business that spends half its income in administration and salaries has a major problem," Senator Heffernan said.