Kostya

First let me offer the disclaimer that I am not at all familiar with the finer points of the Westminster system in general or Australian Parliamentary Goverment in particular.

I do however think it is not quite so simple as you suggest here. To say that Abbot does not represent the Australian people is true enough, but so too may we make the very same objection against the 'expert panel' also do you not agree. Moreover, I don't think its quite fair to say that Abbot represents only his electorate, since nobody would say the very same of John Howard, though he was technically only elected by a tiny portion of the nation, we consider him the leader of our nation.
I agree that when voting on legislation, all members of Parliament, be they Howard, Beasley or Abbot do represent their electorate, since all their votes are equal. This being said, we all concur that in general, Federal MP's do not vote as if they were looking out for their electorate, but rather they vote according to a specific party stance, prescribed from the upper echelons.
Separate from this, we also agree that some MP's are endowed with certain executive powers which they inherit by occupying various portfolios or positions. For instance, John Howard, in addition to his function as a voter in Parliamentary proceedings, also has far reaching powers conferred upon him by virtue of his being the Prime Minister also. Likewise, Abbot also happened, until recently to possess the veto power, by virtue of being a health minister, which, unfortunately is a position to which he was appointed, not elected.
Abbot's claim to representing the Australian people is tenuous at best, being, as far as I can see, merely that he is the Health Minister in the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party was elected to more seats than any other, and hence, his wishes, which are Liberal policy therefore represent, at least more Australian people than not.
This being said, I see no reason for the health minister to be endowed with these kinds of powers, and I am glad that this unnecessary concentration of power has been duly discarded. I do not however, particularly approve of merely shifting similar powers to another agent, be it a panel of experts or anyone else.

This being said, I do not see how you can delineate the RU486 controversy from the abortion controversy. I agree that dangers in use are of significant concern, but so too ought we consider what a drug is designed to do in determining whether it ought to be legal or not.
I agree with you that opponents of abortion should only be able to affect change through the legislative process, but this doesn't mean that RU486 has nothing to do with abortion, nor that it ought not enter into our consideration of its legality or not.
I imagine for instance, that if someone wanted to release a perfectly safe drug that simply put people to sleep and erased their memory of the last 48 hours, it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that despite the lack of dangers in usage, the significant dangers, moral or otherwise in releasing what is essentially a tailor made date rape drug is indeed a major and central consideration in the decision.

RU486 has been passed through the legislature, this makes it legal. But nobody has thus far answered my question, which was not about the legality of it, but are you for it?