And yet I can't think of one single notable export of Australian TV other than Neighbours and Home and Away which don't exactly have the largest of viewerships anyway.
It's not like Australia is a shining symbol of TV export, so fat lot of good losing the license has done you. In fact, Australian news in particular is renowned for it's complete lack of plurality and this is a large reason why. The BBC allows British TV to punch well above it's weight both in terms of geopolitical influence, and in terms of the money subsequent sales of it's content bring in for the production of new high quality content meaning we get more stuff worth watching.
It also allows the BBC to be a technology driver, being able to develop things like iPlayer meant it led the way in on-demand TV, and nowadays every channel has an on-demand option because of that. The license fee also funds the sustainment of the UK's broadcast network (for radio and TV) and has even been used to help drive broadband rollout.
Most Brits thing the BBC license is a fee worth paying overall, because it's nets us so much for our money. Complaining of misuse real or perceived of it doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever to scrap it altogether though.
For what it's worth though the UK has 4 key broadcasters - BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5. Each is funded in a different manner to ensure the UK has a plurality of funded channels to minimise the chance of conflicts of interest causing problems. The BBC is funded by the license fee, ITV is wholly commercial but an amalgamation of local TV companies designed to provide more locally relevant content, Channel 4 is publicly owned but with no license fee subsidy and is a self-funding non-profit, and Channel 5 is a wholly commercial national station.
That's why any talk of BBC bias, or BBC is the government mouth piece blah blah is largely entirely meaningless and misses the point. We have 4 key very differently organised broadcast channels precisely to prevent that ever being an issue - the point being if the BBC genuinely was suffering from serious systemic bias then the other channels could expose that. If the corporately owned channels were suffering from bias due to corporate influence then the publicly funded BBC, could expose that, if government bias and corporate influence were the problem then the publicly owned but privately run ITV could highlight that. If local issues are being overlooked by the national stations then ITV can highlight that too with it's local stations.
You can't eliminate the BBC's public funding model without removing a keystone of the premise that keeps British TV honest - the fact that they all exist under different regimes to police each other. We've seen this come to the fore on a number of occasions - ITV for example was able to expose the BBC over the failure to publish an investigation into Jimmy Savile for example. It works well and it'd be stupid to mess with it unless you have a vested interest in making sure British TV channels could be trivially manipulated (which is a position we see from Sky for which Murdoch is the majority holder - an Australian media mogul nonetheless who has made his entire fortune and empire on biased media) and to that I say no thank you. Our way is about as good as it's ever going to get really and we need to protect that - the extremes of countries with full commercial and full state controlled TV are just nowhere near as desirable - you're either drowning in ads and product placement, or drowning in state propaganda. We thankfully have to suffer neither of those things to any particularly problematic degree.