From Tokyo backstreets to quiet coastal towns and off-grid cabins, top executives reveal where they holiday and why stepping away makes the grind worthwhile.
5 min
Months of running between meetings and breaking down the working week into 30-minute increments to get through a long list of tasks takes its toll on the most astute business leader.
So, Kanebridge News asked corporate high-flyers where they holiday and how they value their time, which revealed a fascinating insight into not just what makes them tick.
Many told stories of time away from the hustle, spent exploring the dark corners of Tokyo, the beaches of Bali and off-grid tiny homes with loved ones.
They agreed that taking a well-earned break from rigid scheduling and being ruled by a calendar in a high-pressure environment makes the hustle worthwhile.
High-profile Sydney leadership trainer Karlie Cremin leaves the city behind for a break by the beach with her husband and three children, all under 10 years of age.
Having school-aged kids means she’s tethered to the school holiday period for her breaks, but the CEO of leadership program firm Crestcom makes the most of it, driving north of Sydney to the Central Coast for a two-week break at the end of each year at Pearl Beach.
“We love the area because no one goes there, and yet it’s magical. It’s this little oasis away from the traffic jams, which gives us something to look forward to.”
The family hires the same house every year, located within walking distance of the local beach, where they hang out during the day.
“The kids arrive at the holiday house and know where everything is and how to get around. They love the familiarity of hiring the same house every year.”
Karlie loves a bite at nearby eatery Bells at Killcare while in town, which is booked in advance.
“There’s nothing much at Pearl Beach, which is how we like it. Mostly, we barbecue out back, serve salads, and keep it really simple. We enjoy not having complicated dinners when we’re on a break,” Cremin says.
While she would love to completely switch off, the reality is that she does need to be available for work.
“There are some tasks that only I can do in the organisation, but I tend to handle those things that pop up once the kids are in bed, so it doesn’t interfere with family time.”
Running the largest global franchise pool service brand as it continues on a strong growth trajectory is a big job for Nic Brill, who stepped into the global CEO role late last year. (SUBS 2025)
He admits that leading a service business of scale requires clear thinking, good judgement and sustained energy.
“I’m at my best when I’ve had time to step back and reset, so I view downtime as a strategic necessity.”
The company works hard to create environments that elevate people’s quality of life at home.
“We also take a few international breaks throughout the year. For me, the ideal holiday is somewhere warm, relaxed and close to the water.”
“Time is one of those things you can’t manufacture, so I’m very deliberate about how I use it. When I’m taking a break, I try to protect it so I can be present with my family and properly recharge. At the same time, I lead a large franchise network, and I’m always mindful of my responsibility to our people.
Small townships dotted along the northern NSW coastline has become a favourite, where he goes to switch off, spend time with family.
“I’m happiest when the days are simple – time by the pool or ocean, good meals and a chance to slow down and reconnect.
“I also like to keep active, whether that’s swimming, getting out for a run or exploring somewhere new,” Brill says.
The founder of Australia’s largest privately owned flexible workspace operations has spent more than a decade building his business.
Founded in response to the growing number of freelancers and entrepreneurs requiring workspace following the global financial crisis, the pioneering business model has been built on sweat equity.
But when he’s away from the daily grind, Brad likes to book flights to somewhere in Asia, which has emerged as a favourite holiday spot for him and his family. Malaysia, Thailand and Bali are popular spots.
He also recalls a great holiday in Tokyo’s Shinjuku Golden Gai, a collection of mismatched, tumbledown bars lining a darkened corner of the city.
While adventure holidays were a favourite in years gone by, that’s not so much the case these days as a family man. He often spends time trying local cuisine, wandering through retail areas and seeing the local sights, which are his favourite.
Holidays across Australia are also a favourite. “When I’m away, the out of office is on, and the team know that if they need me, they need to call or text me. I’m not contactable on email when I’m on a break, which means I’m not buried in my inbox while I’m away. Keeping yourself off the emails or Slack or whatever it is gives you that distance from work that enables you to take a good break.”
He also likes to take a break by himself occasionally to recharge. “I try to take all my leave each year, because it helps me be better when I’m at work.”
Brad has taken a few breaks at an Unyoked Cabin, an off-the-grid cabin in a remote area, both alone and with his daughter.
Quick little nature getaways that mean you’re completely disconnected are the best. And I never finish a holiday without having booked your next one,” he admits.
Spending his working days at the helm of a Perth-based wealth management and financial planning firm is where Justin Gilmour belongs.
But when he’s on a break, he prefers to get in the car rather than a plane, driving to the regional area of Yallingup in the southwest of Western Australia in the Margaret River region.
He loves to slow down and enjoy warm, sunny days and gentle coastal breezes when relaxing. “The beaches in the south-west are world-class, offering pristine sands and crystal clear waters that rival any international destination. For me, there’s simply nowhere better to unwind and recharge than this spectacular corner of the country.”
His break is spent with his wife and kids, but he admits half of Perth heads up to Yallingup as well.
“We’re always bumping into people (and even clients) that we know. But spending time in Yallingup allows me to slow down and enjoy the simple pleasure of life with my family.”
He prefers not to stay in touch with the office too much while he’s down there, using the time to reset and recharge, but does chat to clients when he bumps into them.
“I think it’s important to have that period of clear headspace and take a step back and look at the bigger picture, both in terms of my personal life and for the business. A daily swim is certainly a must when I’m down there.”
The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.
Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.
AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
4 min
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
