Nuclear, explained.
The domestic framework reflects decades of political negotiations between industry, environmentalists and Indigenous communities (Phillip Wittke/Getty Images)
Albanese and Modi struck the deal – but left environmental accountability for Australian uranium in the ground.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Not enough travels with Australia’s uranium to IndiaNot enough travels with Australia’s uranium to India
More than a decade is a long time (Opens in new window) to wait for a uranium deal. On Thursday, 9 July 2026, Prime Ministers Anthony Albanese and Narendra Modi stood together in Melbourne and closed the gap, operationalising the 2015 Australia–India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, clearing the way for Australian uranium to fuel India’s nuclear ambitions. The deal – which has a troubled (Opens in new window) history (Opens in new window) – makes strategic sense. India has set a target (Opens in new window) of 100 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2047 and has almost no domestic uranium to draw on. Australia holds the world’s largest (Opens in new window) uranium reserves and a resource sector hungry for new markets. Both governments want a deeper partnership. The logic is clean.
What’s less clear is the governance architecture surrounding it.
When asked whether selling uranium while opposing nuclear energy at home was hypocritical, Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong (Opens in new window) offered a direct answer: “We now have all the safeguards that are required.” That’s accurate, as far as it goes. Both the 2015 agreement and Thursday’s administrative arrangement are non-proliferation instruments. They govern peaceful use, International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and accounting procedures for uranium transfers through India’s fuel cycle. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri (Opens in new window) confirmed the arrangement had resolved long-standing “reporting-related issues” around “the supply, the handling and the accounting” of uranium.
These safeguards track what India does with Australian uranium after it arrives. What is public so far says little about how it leaves Australia.
Australia is extending its Indo-Pacific clean energy partnerships into an area where the extraction accountability it demands domestically has no equivalent requirement internationally.
Australia does have serious domestic safeguards for uranium mining. Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Opens in new window), uranium mining is classified as a prescribed “nuclear action” requiring federal environmental approval. The Native Title Act (Opens in new window) gives Traditional Owners a right to negotiate before mining proceeds on their land, but not a right to veto. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (Opens in new window)licensing process requires consideration of public submissions, including from community members affected by uranium operations. State governments have their own regulations. Western Australia approves no new uranium mines (Opens in new window). Victoria prohibits (Opens in new window) uranium exploration entirely. This framework reflects decades of political negotiations between industry, environmentalists and Indigenous communities.
How much of that domestic accountability travels with the uranium?
The joint statement (Opens in new window) gives us some indication of what both governments value in a supply chain. The leaders affirmed that transparent, secure and resilient supply chains are central. Environmental accountability and community standards do not appear. Modi did speak (Opens in new window) of “uranium supplies from Australia to India [giving] our clean energy objectives fresh momentum” while Albanese talked of helping India “increase the share of non-fossil fuel power capacity”. But the omission of explicit environmental commitments in the joint statements appears a clear choice.
The deal sits inside the Quad’s Indo-Pacific Energy Security framework, launched in May 2026 (Opens in new window), built to power regional clean energy cooperation. But clean energy implies a supply chain that meets environmental and community standards across its full lifecycle – from extraction through to generation. The Quad’s energy security framework covers technology cooperation, market analysis and energy resilience. It does not reference extraction standards.
It is possible that provisions addressing extraction accountability exist in parts of the administrative arrangement not yet made public. If they do, Australians should know. If they don’t, Australians should know that too.
Australia is extending its Indo-Pacific clean energy partnerships into an area where the extraction accountability it demands domestically has no equivalent requirement internationally. Global scrutiny of clean energy supply chains has never been greater. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is already pricing supply chain carbon (Opens in new window) content at the border for traded goods. Pressure on extraction standards across critical minerals is only likely to grow, and the gap between domestic accountability and international silence cannot be hidden for long.
Thursday’s agreement was a landmark. Whether it becomes a standard is another question entirely.
About the author
Debomita Dasgupta
Debomita Dasgupta is a policy economist and researcher specialising in Indo-Pacific maritime governance, environmental economics, and the political economy of gender.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
