Household recycling depends entirely on public willingness to sort waste, and that willingness rests on an assumption the public cannot verify. Every reported failure of the downstream chain damages participation for years, because there is no routine way for a resident to check the claim in either direction.

Commercial confidentiality in the processing contracts is the usual reason given. That is a real interest, and it does not obviously extend to the proportion of collected material that is ultimately landfilled.

Carries commercial because the processing contracts genuinely do restrict disclosure of their terms, and the register records that as the real interest it is rather than as obstruction. It is the reason this entry is not scored as fixable without new collection.

The narrowing matters more than the concession. A confidentiality clause over what a council pays a processor per tonne does not obviously reach the proportion of collected material that is ultimately landfilled, which is the figure residents are actually asking for and the one that determines whether kerbside sorting is worth doing. Recording the constraint honestly is what makes that distinction worth listening to.

Checked on 2026-09-02 and narrowed. More of the chain is published than the entry allowed: Brisbane names the material recovery facility its kerbside recycling goes to and the streams it is sorted into, and several Queensland councils maintain a "what happens to my waste" page doing the same. fragmented has been dropped, because the first link in the chain is not hard to find.

The residual question is the one residents actually ask and it is still unanswered: of what is collected and sorted, what proportion is reprocessed and what proportion ends up in landfill. That figure depends on downstream contracts and market conditions, and no council located in this check published it.