Australia has conducted more defence exercises with China than peer countries, has the largest number of failed substantial investments by Chinese companies, and is about on average for citizens with a positive view of China.
These are the curiously mixed findings from a study that attempts to compare how eight developed countries with substantial economic relationships with China are managing the rise of a new global superpower.
The study concludes that, overall, Australia's relationship with China is solid by comparison with the US, Germany, France, Canada, Singapore, South Korea and New Zealand. 
It finds that over a wide range of economic, social and diplomatic criteria Australia did not do exceptionally badly or exceptionally well, which it notes is a contrast to some widely varied commentary in Australia about the state of the relationship.
"The volatility of the Australian media on stories involving China posits relations between Australia and China as exceptional or fragile, sometimes overlooking weaknesses, sometimes overlooking successes," the study by the Australia China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney says.
The key strengths in the relationship are, not surprisingly, a high level of Australian exports, Chinese inward investment, the number of Chinese students in Australia, defence co-operation, and the new bilateral trade agreement.
The weaknesses that emerge are low-level diplomatic representation, mixed findings on Australian investment in China, and the narrow base of exports in the resources sector.

Bilateral trade agreement
The findings come as last week's political compromise on the labour rules in the bilateral trade agreement have sped up its implementation. However, the level of British engagement with China has not been captured at a time when the favourable treatment of President Xi Jinping in London last week has underlined the competition among many countries to deepen Chinese engagement.
The study argues that Australia's trade deal provides significant immediate advantages over Germany, France, Canada, the US and South Korea, which don't now have such an agreement. It also provides greater protection for Australia in future than New Zealand's pre-existing agreement by providing superior most-favoured-nation provisions to give Australia access to concessions that China gives other countries in future.
The risks of the end of the resources boom are underlined by Australia's rating of 0.52 on an export concentration index with the next-closest countries being New Zealand and Singapore at 0.33. However, this does not capture services exports.
China's well-known high level of investment in Australia is reflected in the study, with the investment over a decade only exceeded by the US on two different measures. What is less well appreciated is that China's foreign-direct-investment stock in the US last year was 4.3 per cent, well above the 2.7 per cent in Australia that is sometimes the subject of political debate.
And the high level of investment is also accompanied by high levels of failure, with 21 investments valued at more than US$100 million failing in Australia, compared with only 19 in the US and trifling levels of failure in the other countries.
In another surprising finding, Australia emerges as having conducted the most defence exercises with China in the past decade: 14, compared with an average of seven for the group.
But when it comes to voting alongside China in the United Nations over the past 15 years, Australia's relationship is less cosy, with an affinity rating of 0.19 (with 1 meaning perfect affinity), which contrasts 0.85 for Singapore but minus 0.58 for the US.