A "selfless" head of state?

As the Queen is non-resident might it not enable her to be more non-partisan in a "above the fray" type of way?

That is one of the arguments for retaining HM's Privy Council as final court of appeal. Make that "was" as the Labour Party did away with that important part of our constitution without a referendum and against much legal opinion.

"The reality is, in any intervention by its nature is partisan."

For the sake of clarity I think we should bear in mind the difference between impartiality and innocence. I mean, when a cricket umpire makes a ruling on a controversial LBW appeal, he doesn't lose his impartiality: that lies in the fact that he has no connection to either team (at least in Test cricket anyway), so he is able to intervene in an impartial fashion; but clearly once he's made that intervention he can't claim to be devoid of responsibility for the outcome of the match.

But you're absolutely right to point out that the Queen never intervenes. The problem is that most monarchists here in Britain will say that such a status quo still keeps the politicians in their place through deference to the Crown, which is nonsense - just look at all the politically correct legislation which Blair's Labour asked HM to sign into law, thus pushing her conservative Christian faith to the absolute limits of tolerance; while monarchists Down Under will say that the presence of the Governor-General means there's no need for the monarch to ever intervene, which ignores the fact that the GG is hired & fired on the whim of the Prime Minister, unless of course they are smart and daring enough to pre-empt the latter eventuality as in 1975.

To argue that the current Monarch is 'selfless' is hyperbole bordering on the hagiographic. It is a view common among monarchist's in New Zealand at present who have a trendency to worship Elizabeth as if she were an infallable saint. I suspect that for many of them they are unable to seperate their personal religious allegiances from the wider constitutional debate. The Royal family are far from fallable and if they were selfless they would do it all for free instead of expecting the British tax payer to fund and subsidise their houses and servants and public appearances. Republicans are not taken in by the baubles and accoutrements of Monarchy. Look beyond the glittering jewels, the pompous ceremonies and countless official portraits and you see a tired old family institution trying hard to appear relevant.