Skip Navigation

New Zealand or Australia... which is better in general?

Travel Forums General Talk New Zealand or Australia... which is better in general?

Page
  • 1
  • 2

Last Post

11. Posted by grasshoppa (Full Member 202 posts) 10y

ok Sunset1999 trust me... There is ALOT more to do in Australia.
As for Sydney... theres no way Sydney is too big in terms of population, New York with 21 million people is too big, Tokyo with 32 million people is to big and London with 7 million people could be considered too big but considering Sydney is a very large city physically, 5 million people isnt very many.

Don't even try and compare New Zealand beaches to The whitsundays, the great barrier reef(one of the wonders of the world) bondi beach, byron bay and all the beaches in the Gold Coast and WA beacause none of New Zealand is in the tropics and there beaches just arent as beautiful as the ones in Aus and the surf just isnt there either.

As forforests Australia has some of the best tropical rainforests in the world.

Im not critisising New Zealand its a nice country but beacause of Australia's size, location and famous landmarks like the Sydney opera house, Sydney harbour bridge, Uluru and many more it is just a much more beautiful country whith more to see and do.

answer me this sunset 1999! what does NZ have landmark wise that matches the world famous opera house or Uluru or the great barrier reef

12. Posted by penna (Full Member 110 posts) 10y

maybe from a tourist pamphlet and postcard point of veiw australia has more. if u are aperson who needs to be entertained and go on guided tours then australia is the pick but new zealand has more adventure. i hate to say it but kiwis are also generally friendlier (because of the small town thing) and they dont rip tourists off as much. Plus from what i have gathred in general they like tourists, this is not so in many (not all) parts of australia

13. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4810 posts) 10y

Quoting grasshoppa

what does NZ have landmark wise that matches the world famous opera house or Uluru or the great barrier reef

What does Australia have, gorgeous nature wise, that matches the world heritage area of the Fjordlands, the majestic sheer cliffs of Milford Sound, the sheer stunning beauty and remoteness of the Milford Track, the glory of the Southern Alps, the awesomeness of Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers coming closer to the sea than anywhere else in the world, ending virtually in the middle of rain forest, the lofty peaks of Mt. Cook, Mt. Tasman e.a., the stunning blue of Lake Tekapo or Lake Pukaki, the awesome volcanic desert areas of Tongariro National Park within mere hours of the rolling green hills of Pureora Forest Park, or the sheer variety of beaches, climate forests, rainforests, volcanic landscapes, rolling hills and craggy snow capped mountains in such a small and superlatively accessible area?

Australia might have landmarks, but New Zealand has scenery. :) (And personally, landmark wise, I'd pit the skytower against the opera house.)

But anyway, I agree with the early posters in this thread - it depends completely on what you're looking for. Both are awesome countries in their own right. I, as a nature lover, preferred New Zealand. No matter how small the village I was in, I was always assured of a couple of very well maintained walking tracks in the neighbourhood, leading me off to behold yet more beautiful nature, which showed a huge variation from what I'd seen at the previous village just an hour or two away.
Yet Australia had Glebe with its awesome bohemian feel, Sydney with its gorgeous weather and really nice harbour that you could criss-cross with ferries for days on end without getting bored, Melbourne with its countless restaurants and European feel, the platypuses, the kangaroos (not that I saw any of those), the koalas, the crocs and the reefs.

[ Edit: Edited at May 11, 2006 5:38 AM by Sander ]

14. Posted by john7buck (Respected Member 458 posts) 10y

First of all, and I mean no offense by this mat44, it's a bogus question. Which is better "in general"? What on Earth does that mean? In general for what? I think the differences between the two countries have been summed up pretty well, and I think Sander and Grasshoppa would both agree that in general, it depends on what you're looking for.

I can tell you that you won't go wrong with either one though, so enjoy no matter what you decide.

15. Posted by sunset1999 (Full Member 108 posts) 10y

Quoting grasshoppa

answer me this sunset 1999! what does NZ have landmark wise that matches the world famous opera house or Uluru or the great barrier reef

The whole of NZ is a landmark.

16. Posted by grasshoppa (Full Member 202 posts) 10y

Quoting sunset1999

Quoting grasshoppa

answer me this sunset 1999! what does NZ have landmark wise that matches the world famous opera house or Uluru or the great barrier reef

The whole of NZ is a landmark.

k yeh and im santa clause!!!! Yes thats right its very easy to make stuff like that up but realisticly the great barrier reef is one of the wonders of the world.

Im not critisizing NZ its a very nice country i just think becasue Australia is so much bigger and extends up to the tropics it is more beautiful and there is more to do.

17. Posted by sunset1999 (Full Member 108 posts) 10y

Well if you take one part of Australia the same size as NZ, which would have more things to do?

18. Posted by grasshoppa (Full Member 202 posts) 10y

Quoting sunset1999

Well if you take one part of Australia the same size as NZ, which would have more things to do?

depends where in Australia... if it were the Gold Coast or something then there would be more there

Page
  • 1
  • 2