I live in Thailand...For vacations, next December... Australia or New Zeland?

The thing is, both of these places cater to what you have said you are interested in, very well.

In Australia there are great natural places for birdwatching, shopping, families, food and shopping, and same with New Zealand.

I guess you need to start thinking about what sort of nature you want to see.

If you want sunny beaches, humid rainforests, dry deserts, coral reefs etc. Come to Australia.

By the same token, if you want spectacular mountains, green pine forests, glaciers, thermal hot springs and volcanoes etc. Go to New Zealand. (Note: You can relax on the beach in New Zealand, but there isnt as many that are suitable, and the weather down south isnt really beach weather even in December)

Both places have wonderful historic sites as well, and the main cities are also very pretty in their own rights. Again: If you want hot sunny harbour cruises, and spectacular architecture like the harbour bridge and opera house: Sydney is the place.

If you want milder weather, with beautiful old style victorian architecture, green English style parks etc. Try Christchurch or Dunedin in New Zealand.

Both Australia and New Zealand are VERY family friendly places to visit. They're full of things for the kids to do, and many places in the national parks are especially designed for families with children.

Basically, Australia and New Zealand are both wonderful places to visit. I live in Australia, and personally would prefer visitors came here, BUT, having said that, I cant honestly say Australia is any better to NZ. It's different, but not better.

Have a look at these sites to help you decide:

www.newzealand.com/travel

www.australia.com

Well both countries offer a lot in the way of #'s 1-5. Neither offers good food if you are coming from Thailand. The shopping is most definitely better in Australia, as are the sites of historical value. The problem with Australia is that it is very large. Dependng on how long you go, you could do Sydney and the Gold Coast or Melbourne and the Great Ocean road, but I don't think you could do bothof those trips. NZ, onthe other hand, you can practically broad jump from Aukland to Wellington. You could go skiing in the morning and surf in the afternoon.

Since your preferences seem to be nature first and touristy stuff second, I am gonna suggest NZ because it is the earthier of the two places. If the touristy stuff (shopping, galleries, good eats) is closer to equal, then head for Australia.

2 years in the past I went to London (the city of my start) and had a sturdy time vacationing my few superb kin. I spent 3 weeks, yet England isn't the britain I remember from at the same time as i became a baby. The nation-state remains perfect, even with the undeniable fact that the city itself made me sense like a foreigner! i assumed i became on the League of international locations. As i'm now on oxygen, i won't be able to be able to go back and forth any more desirable - and that i won't be able to omit it! I easily were all over the area 4 situations and that is adequate for everybody! CJ

If you are going to make the trip then see both countries. Auckland is a 3 hour flight from Sydney and fares are relatively cheap. Both countries have so much to offer that it would be worth it to take them both in. Maybe go to Sydney and Melbourne in Aus then head to Auckland - all on your list can be done in and around those 3 cities.

Australia.

I wouldn't give yer troubles to a monkey on a rock!

You've got one hekava problem except I'm from USA & would not be tempted to go to NZ but I'm not into GENERAL nature, no, I'm more into specific nature, like BEACHPARK, so, yeah, I'd say Australia.

New Zealand. Its the home of the happiest people in the world.

Well, I'd go with New Zealand.

new zealand ownss