Are Australians less likely to poke poisonous things with sticks?
The ones that make it to puberty at least.
Generally speaking, I suspect the answer is yes, but not by a huge amount. (I think we're more likely to take "it might be venomous" as the default setting for things we don't recognise. Because it is more likely to be venomous.) However, bear in mind too that most of our venomous stuff stays comfortably out of the way, so though we have lots of venomous species, that doesn't necessarily translate to a lot of one-on-one encounters.
What swings it, to me, is that I didn't limit it to being poisoned by an animal. We have venomous stuff; we don't have much that will kill you for food. You have genuine land predators that could take a human. (We have crocs, and they truly are dangerous, but they stay in the sparsely populated far north.)
My maths, then, is: chances of a toxic death are pretty similar in either country (rattlers for you, brown snakes, tiger snakes and taipans for us), but chances of a mauling death are greater over there. Not that either country is exactly seeing epidemic levels. Not like, say, the many thousands of snakebite deaths in India each year.