Interesting stuff, Richard, thanks for drawing it to our attention.

It's hard to know what to make of anecdotal evidence such as this, and there is a risk that it could be used to draw conclusions that aren't warranted by the proven facts. (In which context, I recall the American law review article that found that New Zealanders' lax attitudes towards safety was demonstrated by the playing of rugby without helmets and body armour...)

I would be interested in hearing more of what on another website is called the 'major study' conducted by the academic interviewed (Susan Watson - a company lawyer, it appears). I can't track down anything published by her on this topic at all.

Workplace health and safety has in fact been a very significant issue in New Zealand in recent times, though it appears that Watson's statement that "New Zealand has four times the rate of workplace fatalities than the UK and twice the rate of workplace fatalities than Australia” is open to serious question. One problem is that most other countries under-count occupational fatalities in comparison with New Zealand, which derives very comprehensive data from its accident compensation system. A recent government-commissioned report makes interesting reading on this (http://www.hstaskforce.govt.nz/index.asp; and see especially the working paper on the international comparison of workplace fatal injury rates).

Even if it were to be proven that New Zealand compares badly internationally, it wouldn't follow that the accident compensation system is to blame. The Nordic counties have (apparently) very low occupational fatality rates, but also have no-fault compensation for work accidents.