Australia Just Hit Chinese Windows and Doors With Charges of Up to 73.3%. And We're Supposed to Build 1.2 Million Homes?

I met with a prominent Australian property developer this week who has been involved in delivering tens of thousands of homes over his career.

We were discussing the state of the construction industry and how difficult it has become to get new projects off the ground. He explained that construction costs on some of his developments have effectively doubled since COVID, and despite everything the industry has been through, they are still rising.

Then he raised something that really caught my attention.

Australia has introduced new anti-dumping measures affecting aluminium windows and doors imported from China, with provisional charges reaching as high as 73.3%.

I decided to investigate further, and what I discovered was far more concerning than the cost of windows alone.

I've spent more than 25 years working in quantity surveying, construction costs and property, including experience in Australia, the UK and the United States. I'm a Chartered Quantity Surveyor with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and a Certified Quantity Surveyor with the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (AIQS).

I've worked through different construction cycles, but I cannot recall a period when so many pressures were affecting the cost and financial viability of delivering new buildings.

Labour shortages, higher material prices, rising insurance premiums, expensive finance, increasing compliance requirements and continued pressure on construction productivity. Developers are already struggling to make the numbers work, particularly on apartment projects.

Now we have another potential cost to deal with, and I suspect most Australians have no idea it has happened.

What's actually happened?

On 14 October 2026, the Australian Trade Remedies Commission released preliminary findings into aluminium windows and doors imported from China under Investigation 691.

From 15 October, importers of affected products have been required to lodge financial securities against possible anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

The rates depend on the exporter. Five individually examined exporters face rates ranging from 5.3% to 51.6%, one examined exporter is exempt, approximately 120 cooperating exporters face a rate of 24.4%, and other exporters face a combined rate of 73.3%.

These are provisional securities, not final duties, and the percentage applies to the relevant export price rather than the full installed cost of the windows.

That distinction is important, but it doesn't make the commercial implications disappear.

Consider a builder importing a window and door package with an export value of $30,000. At the 24.4% rate, the security would be $7,320. At 73.3%, it would be $21,990.

These are illustrations of the security required, not necessarily the final increase in the cost of the building. The financial impact depends on whether the security becomes a duty, the importer's arrangements and how costs are absorbed or passed on.

But for a builder already operating under a fixed-price contract, or a developer negotiating construction prices, these are not insignificant amounts.

And on a major apartment development, where imported window systems can represent a substantial component of the external facade, the potential exposure is considerably greater.

How many people currently building or buying a home even know this is happening?

Who asked for these measures?

The investigation was initiated following an application from Ventora Group and the Australian Glass and Window Association (AGWA), representing concerns about the impact of allegedly dumped and subsidised imports on Australian manufacturers.

The Timber, Furnishing and Textiles Union also made a formal submission supporting the investigation and calling for action to protect Australian manufacturing jobs and apprenticeships.

On the other side, Master Builders Australia and several construction businesses have raised concerns about the impact on construction costs, access to building materials and housing supply.

I understand the arguments for protecting local manufacturing. We need Australian businesses producing building materials, employing skilled workers and investing in our economy.

Dumping also has a specific meaning under trade law. It generally involves goods being exported below their assessed normal value, rather than simply being cheaper than Australian-made alternatives.

There are legitimate reasons for government to intervene where unfair trading practices are causing injury to Australian industry.

But there is another side to this that I don't believe is receiving enough attention.

When government introduces measures that make imported building products more expensive, domestic manufacturers may benefit from reduced price competition.

The cost and uncertainty, however, can fall on importers, builders, developers and ultimately the people who need somewhere to live.

And while protecting manufacturing jobs is a legitimate objective, what about the thousands of jobs supported by the construction industry?

If projects become unviable, builders, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers all lose work.

Surely those consequences deserve just as much consideration.

I thought this was about windows. It turns out it's much bigger.

What surprised me most when I started looking into this issue was discovering just how many other construction materials are already covered by Australian anti-dumping measures.

The government's current register includes aluminium extrusions, structural steel sections, reinforcing steel, hollow structural sections, galvanised steel, aluminium-zinc coated steel, light-gauge steel framing, ceiling framing and other manufactured products.

These measures apply to different countries, products and exporters, and the applicable duty rates vary. They have also been introduced at different times, with some existing for many years.

There are further investigations and reviews underway.

So this is not the beginning of Australian trade protection. The new window and door measures are another addition to a system that already affects materials used throughout construction.

As a Quantity Surveyor, I look at the costs of a building element by element. We assess the foundations, structure, external walls, windows, doors, roofing, services, finishes and everything else required to deliver the completed project.

Each element has a cost, and those costs ultimately come together in one construction contract.

A trade measure on an individual material might not appear particularly significant when viewed in isolation. But when multiple products are affected, there is a much bigger question.

Has anyone actually calculated the cumulative effect of Australia's anti-dumping measures on the cost of building a new home?

I don't mean simply adding up the duties collected by government. I mean looking at the impact on material prices, supplier competition, procurement costs and development feasibility.

I would genuinely like to see that analysis.

Because if we're serious about delivering more housing, we need to understand what government decisions are doing to the cost of constructing it.

This is where projects start to fall over

One of the things I discussed with the developer this week was just how difficult development feasibility has become.

There is a common assumption that when construction costs increase, developers simply pass those costs on to purchasers.

In practice, it is nowhere near that straightforward.

The market determines what someone is prepared or able to pay for an apartment. The developer cannot automatically increase the selling price every time a supplier increases their quotation.

A development needs sufficient profit to justify the risk, acceptable financing terms and, in many cases, a level of presales that satisfies the lender.

Now consider a 100-apartment development where an increase in window procurement costs adds $10,000 per apartment.

That is another $1 million in construction costs.

This is an illustration rather than a forecast of the new duties, but it demonstrates why the issue matters.

The developer may already own the land, have planning approval, completed the design, secured presales and spent considerable money preparing the project.

An additional $1 million has to come from somewhere. It may reduce the developer's margin, require more equity, increase financing costs or trigger further negotiations with the builder.

Sometimes there is room to absorb an increase. Other times there isn't.

I've seen how changes in construction costs can affect development decisions. A project doesn't need to become dramatically more expensive to fall below the return required by its developer or lender.

And when the feasibility no longer works, the project may be delayed, redesigned or abandoned.

The result isn't necessarily an apartment that costs another $10,000.

It might be an apartment that never gets built.

That is what concerns me most about introducing additional costs into an industry already struggling to deliver sufficient housing.

Are we protecting businesses or improving productivity?

I want Australian manufacturing to succeed, and I recognise the importance of maintaining local manufacturing capability and skilled jobs.

But I also believe we need to have a serious discussion about productivity.

Australia operates in a global market. We have comparatively high labour costs, and local manufacturers need to invest in automation, technology, efficient production systems and equipment that allows them to compete.

Some price differences arise from unfair trading practices, including dumping and subsidies. Others may reflect genuine differences in scale, productivity and manufacturing efficiency.

Those issues need to be distinguished.

Trade protection may provide relief where unfair competition is established. But protection alone doesn't guarantee that a manufacturer will become more efficient, invest in new equipment or expand production capacity.

If these measures are necessary, what is the longer-term plan?

Will local manufacturers invest in automation and increased capacity? Will they be able to supply the quantities and specifications required by major apartment projects? Will construction businesses still have access to sufficient competition between suppliers?

And how will we know whether the protection has delivered a genuine long-term benefit to the Australian economy?

These are reasonable questions when the costs can be felt well beyond the businesses seeking protection.

Government has been warned about this before

One of the more interesting things I found during my research was that Australia's Productivity Commission has previously raised concerns about the wider economic costs of anti-dumping measures.

It recommended a public interest test so that the consequences for other Australian businesses and consumers could be properly considered.

That seems particularly relevant today.

Australia has committed to delivering 1.2 million new homes over five years to June 2029. Yet construction costs, labour shortages, development feasibility and financing conditions continue to make that target difficult to achieve.

We cannot examine the protection of a particular manufacturing industry without also considering the businesses that depend on its products.

A measure might protect jobs at an Australian window manufacturer while increasing costs for an apartment developer. Whether the overall outcome is justified should be assessed on the evidence, including the cost to the wider economy.

I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation.

And it becomes even more important when we're dealing with essential materials used in housing construction.

What happens next?

The window and door investigation commenced in November 2025, with preliminary findings released on 14 October 2026.

Submissions on the findings close on 3 November, and the Commission's final report and recommendation are due by 16 December 2026. The responsible minister will then decide whether final measures should be imposed and at what rates.

There has been media coverage, and the investigation documents are publicly available. But I suspect relatively few ordinary Australians are aware of what has happened or how it could affect construction costs.

Most people would reasonably assume that when government is trying to make housing more affordable, decisions affecting the cost of building materials are being considered as part of that wider objective.

I would like to know whether that is actually happening.

Before the final decision, I believe there should be a transparent assessment of the potential impact on residential construction costs, particularly apartment developments that rely heavily on imported aluminium window and door systems.

I would also like to see a proper analysis of the cumulative effects of existing trade measures across the materials used to construct a building.

And where protection is justified, there should be a clear expectation that manufacturers use the opportunity to improve productivity, expand capacity and remain competitive.

I am not suggesting that Australian manufacturers should be left exposed to unfair trading practices. Nor am I suggesting that every anti-dumping measure is unnecessary.

But surely we can protect legitimate Australian manufacturing interests without losing sight of the enormous challenges facing the construction industry.

I keep coming back to the conversation I had with the developer this week.

Here is someone who has spent decades delivering housing in Australia and has seen construction costs on some projects effectively double since COVID. He understands the financial risks involved in bringing a development to market, and why getting projects started has become so difficult.

From my own experience as a Chartered Quantity Surveyor, I share those concerns.

I've never seen such a combination of pressures on construction costs and development feasibility, and I don't believe we can keep treating every additional cost as though it has no wider consequences.

Australia can announce housing targets, release more land and approve more developments. But none of those things guarantees the homes will actually be built.

Ultimately, a development only proceeds when the numbers work.

If we continue introducing costs without properly measuring their combined effect, we risk making an already difficult situation worse.

The question isn't whether Australian manufacturing jobs matter. Of course they do.

The question is whether we're properly considering the cost of protecting those jobs against the homes and construction jobs that may be put at risk.

With final decisions on these window and door measures approaching, I think Australians deserve to understand that trade-off.

I'd be particularly interested to hear from developers, builders, suppliers and other Quantity Surveyors.

Are you already seeing these measures reflected in your construction tenders and supplier quotations? And more importantly, are they starting to affect whether developments can proceed?