NATO's geographic area was carefully drawn up to not include colonial territories (although it did include French Algeria). It wasn't too much of a problem in Europe to use straight lines as there weren't too many European colonial territories.
If it also includes a Pacific/Indian Ocean zone, it would need some amazing geographic juggling to include Australia + NZ (and probably Singapore which was the main British base in the region), but probably not various British + French Pacific islands, definitely not the Dutch East Indies, nor Portuguese Timor.
If NATO does include DEI or Timor, why should Italy or Turkey commit to fighting for these places?
If NATO does not include DEI or Timor, why should Netherlands or Portugal commit to fighting for British/French/Australia/NZ Pacific/Indian-Ocean territories, when they're not getting the same promise in return?
It also raises the question of why Australia and NZ would want to pre-commit (remember attack on one is attack on all) to defending say European Turkey, or vice-versa? They might commit, if and when the situation arises, but they will want to leave their option open, not make a commitment set in stone. Let's not forget a similar sort of question already came up in the 1920s - Chanak Crisis - and the answer was that Australia + NZ weren't prepared to fight for Turkish borders.
And P.S. The Draka world AFD analogy doesn't apply (even without the names), since in the Draka world, there is only 1 worldwide enemy (the Draka), not several potential regional enemies.