Australia, New Zealand & the South Pacific - How would you split 20 days between Australia and New Zealand?

My in-laws (60's) are going to Australia in November for the first time. They have a free stopover in Auckland. They want to know how many days they should plan on spending in Auckland (and possibly elsewhere in New Zealand), out of a total of 20 days for the trip. Your advice?

Auckland: 1 day (2 at the very most). The rest of NZ: 20 days. I know that leaves 0 for Australia, but you asked for my opinion. Actually it depends what you want to see; NZ is beautiful country but lacklustre city (however Auckland is still a nice city by world standards, just not really worth a special trip). Many other places in NZ are worth a special trip, but it is a country of great diversity and you couldn't see it all in 20 days. Ditto for Australia.
A serious recommendation: 6 days in NZ, 14 days in Australia. For the NZ portion stick to the North Island, there isn't time for the South Island. Spend the days as follows: Auckland, Thames, Rotorua, Napier, Turangi (Lake Taupo), Auckland (best done renting a car but can be done by train/bus). A bit hectic (drop Napier if it is too much, that is the least interesting part of the circuit).
While in Auckland be sure to visit the Museum in the Domain (contains the world's largest collection of Polynesian artifacts).

Thank you for excellent advice -- I will pass it on to them.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by number_6:
Auckland: 1 day (2 at the very most). The rest of NZ: 20 days. I know that leaves 0 for Australia, but you asked for my opinion.</font>

I second this opinion. I have been to both countries, and New Zealand is really special. In Australia, the distances are so great that you need to fly from city to city. New Zealand has spectacular scenery in both islands and particularly in the south island. You can only effectively see New Zealand by getting in a car and savouring all the sights as you go.

They may want to consider a relaxed day in Auckland to get themselves in the right time zone, doing only as much as they feel like doing, then begin touring on the second day. They'll have a 12+ hour flight, and a heavy-duty time-change.

JP

I think the 6 days NZ, 14 days AU is a good idea, but rather than stick to the north island, it could be nice to spend 2 days in AKL then fly down to Queenstown, and go to Milford Sound, Fox Glacier, Mt Cook, return via WLG and spend a day there and then take a flight from WLG-SYD and do your Australian portion from there...

20 days isn't enough for both - so choose either. Depends on the time of year, too - NZ is pretty damp and cold May-August, whereas Sydney north ranges from cool (Sydney) to warm (Cairns) at that time of year.

If there plan is to go to Australia, and they only have 20 days (less flight time?), then forget the "free" stop in Auckland and spend all of the time in Australia.

If they had planned to go to New Zealand and had a free stop in Sydney, I would suggest skiping Australia and spending all the time in New Zealand. In New Zealand, 20 days would give your parents a fair chance to see most of the country.

In Australia, 20 days is a very short stay. WA can be done in 20 days. Melbourne and Adelaide can easily be done in 20 days. Sydney and Caines can be done modestly in 20 days. I am hoping to do Brisbane and Tasmania in 20 days but seem to need about 3 more. Naturally these time periods are based on thing, we like to do. It is what your parents like to do that counts.

Tours are available to do "large areas of the country" poorly, IF this is the only trip your parents will ever make to Australia. If this is one of several, then I would suggest consolidating the time in as few cities as possible.

Lots of great web sites exist. With a lot of effort and time, your parents can find what things they would like to see and do. That is the way I plan our trips. Then, where and how long will become much easier.