It's wrong because it greatly exaggerates the weight that China has in our economy (2.7 per cent of foreign investment to the USA's 27 per cent), the influence that China has on our military stance (full inter-operability with the US), and on our foreign policy. Malcolm Turnbull's recent visit to Washington was much more of a vassalage ritual than anything we see in our dealings with China.

To be sure, Beijing has its lobbyists, its front groups, its propaganda; but to depict China’s activities as in any way unique in this respect strains credulity.

And the discourse is dangerous, because it shifts the blame onto China for our own failings: our failure to keep a lid on lobbying, for example, or our failure to give our universities enough funding to avoid reliance on outside donations. It serves to constrain and limit a debate that needs to involve as many voices as possible, most importantly from Chinese Australia. Already, many hesitate to speak up for fear of being branded as an "apologist" or "capitulationist", terms that Hamilton wields with reckless abandon.

Most worrying, though, is the potential for the book to rekindle the historical anxieties of a White settler state towards an Asian invasion, a trope that sustained decades of bipartisan support for the anti-Chinese White Australia policy. Already the far-right Australia First Party has issued a leaflet which boasts that: "Professor Hamilton is not revealing much more than what the Australia First Party has been saying for years!"

In my courses on Chinese history at Sydney University, I regularly touch on sensitive issues, including Tibet and Xinjiang. My students from the PRC have never been anything but respectful and engaged, and the perspective that they bring to my classroom is immensely valuable. We don't always agree on everything, but I want to continue to have this exchange, and do my job of teaching, without fear and suspicion fear poisoning the relationship.