Yes, I think it does. I think it better balances the sorts of trade-offs between real growth and inflation and it better trades off the regional disparities.
I certainly agree that Australia was lucky with the Asian export connection, but I think it's also important not to overlook the problem of interest rates falling to zero. I think that's less likely to occur with nominal GDP targeting.
In Canada, if they could have done a little more monetary stimulus--easily by cutting rates--it seems to me it would have been more beneficial, but with the inflation target, that was difficult to do. If you look at the inflation numbers for Canada, you see that they've actually been fairly low for the last three years. So in a sense it may not have been the inflation rate per se that was limiting the adjustment or the response, but the fact that really unconventional monetary policy techniques would have been required, and with nominal GDP targeting it would have been probably easier to do that with interest rates, as Australia did.
But again, I think that although there are differences with Australia, the regional disparities and the manufacturing commodity split and so on have some similarities to Canada. I think it's at least a case worth studying to see if it applies to the Canadian experience. I do think nominal GDP targeting does provide more flexibility to deal with regional or sectoral shocks.