The first wording of that ACT allows them to get away with it. The court has to first prove without doubt that the company failed to take reasonable steps. Simple things like saying the Ops manual said don't do that, when behind the scenes it was clear to employees that breaching the Ops manual was expected of them, one is hard proof, the other is speculative. If the Directors/owners were on trial first that they are responsible for their employees no matter what, like the OHS situation, then we would see much greater push from them to do the right thing. 3 Pilots are caught busting duty limits, there is no doubt there was a lack of oversight and therefore management is responsible and must suffer the most penalty. An aircraft is flown well beyond maintenance limits as above for pure greed, no doubt the ownership was involved and must wear the highest of the penalties.
That last option (4) basically says that if you fail to prove they took reasonable steps in criminal court you can't then take them to civil court for recompense, which is ridiculous.
If the CFI/CP keep wearing the blame because of the position, the owners keep employing less than capable puppet CFI/CPs that do what the owner wants without involvement. If the Owner ends up facing the courts every time the employees stuff up, they will either pack up or employ people of the correct morality for the job so they don't.
The same is starting to happen in other businesses, where the 'accredited' person is not the owner, so they are positioned to take the fall when things go wrong. We are seeing a number of transport industries where accidents are increasing because of this.