It will come back to the base issues.
What is the reasonable lifespan of a $1,000 product. For me personally, spending a grand on something I want more than 2 years. (I still use my Samsung S1 - but think that is now out of its reasonable lifetime)
Then its about as a consumer being able to make an informed choice and not being mislead. If a product has a known vulnerability I want to know about it before I buy. That way I can measure the risk relative to the price.
Knowing that, the vulnerability and any subsequent failure to operate isn't a defect. Not knowing that, if the product fails to work as advertised within its reasonable lifetime then a CGA claim should apply.
NZ, I think, is alone in the world with consumer protection like the CGA. It simply blows manufacturer warranties out of the water (which is why I have no sympathy for local retailers who bleat about Amazon, fail to mention the CGA and in the same breath try to sell 3 year extended warranties). If manufacturers want to supply into NZ then they need to be aware of this risk. If they accept it then they should be prepared to support the product through its reasonable lifecycle. If not the consequence is the retailer bears the risk when a CGA claim arises. Who knows how this might impact on the retailer / manufacturer relationship. Conceivablly we would have manufactures not supplying to NZ.