It is unlikely that, when the original law was written (in 1914?), lawmakers foresaw that people would store so much personal information (including not just text, but audio/video) on portable computers. So it's hard to conclude that their intent was so far reaching.

The judge specifically called this out. Quoted in the article: "“Mobile phones are primarily devices for communicating although it is now commonplace for them to have a number of other functions ... Again, the very ubiquity of mobile phones suggests that, if the parliament had intended that they should be encompassed by the term ‘computer’ it would have been obvious to say so.”"

When the law was last amended pretty recently (2018? https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...) and if lawmakers wanted to expand the definition of computer at that time, they could have done.

But they chose not to.

I can see both sides. It's certainly not clear to me that the lawmakers who used the word 'computer' many decades ago would have intended search warrants to cover such a wide set of targets.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps lawmakers then just wanted law enforcement to have access to ~everything.

In any case, it doesn't seem as clear to me as it does to you.