In Anthony Albanese’s political universe, personal relationships are everything.

High on the list for Albanese is his bond with Peter V’landys, the chair of the Australian Rugby League Commission and chief executive of Racing NSW.

That relationship has been central to the government’s decision to again delay reforms of gambling advertising, which V’landys strongly opposes.

“Anthony has known Peter V’landys for a long time, and he takes his views very seriously,” one Labor insider told The Saturday Paper this week after the government deferred a decision on whether to ban advertising for online gambling. “I don’t think it would be a shock to anyone that V’landys told the PM ‘Don’t do it’ with regard to banning gambling ads. And, equally, it should be no surprise that Anthony has listened carefully to that advice.”

On Albanese’s recommendation, in October last year V’landys attended a state dinner at the White House hosted by United States President Joe Biden, as part of V’landys’ concerted effort to break NRL into the US market. Earlier, the pair had watched State of Origin together from the chairman’s suite.

In May, Albanese backed V’landys’ push for a Papua New Guinea team to be added to the NRL competition, which Albanese views as a way of strengthening ties with the Pacific region where Beijing is also competing for strategic influence.

About the same time, Albanese and V’landys collaborated on a funding agreement to upgrade Leichhardt Oval, a historic rugby league venue in the prime minister’s electorate, with the federal government providing nearly half of the $50 million required to ensure the stadium’s future.

“No voice has been more important when it comes to informing the PM on the consequences of a complete [ban on] gambling advertising than V’landys,” another Labor insider told The Saturday Paper. “I would put [AFL chief executive Andrew] Dillon a close second. No one else, not even the free-to-air networks or Kerry Stokes or News Corp, has mattered as much in this debate as what the two sporting codes think.”

On June 19, two weeks before a Parliamentary Friends of Rugby League touch football match in Canberra, the NRL wrote to Albanese’s office requesting a 15-minute meeting between NRL chief executive Andrew Abdo and the prime minister. The sit-down was to discuss, among other things, the proposed ban on gambling advertising – following similar meetings with the Alliance for Gambling Reform’s Tim Costello, a strong advocate for a complete ban on gambling ads.

“PM will not be able to make touch football in the morning but I should be able to accommodate a meeting with Mr Abdo,” Albanese’s program manager replied five days later. “Could I please check and see if a meeting could be accommodated for 08.45am that morning? If so, I can come back on next steps.”

Advocates for reform expressed concern when Albanese and V’landys started quoting the same figures on gambling harm – noting problem gambling has more to do with poker machines and lotteries than sports betting.

The push to ban gambling ads first took root in September 2022, when the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, chaired by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, adopted a referral from Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth to conduct an inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.

In May last year Opposition Leader Peter Dutton pre-empted the committee’s final report, using his budget-in-reply speech to announce that a Coalition government would move to ban sports betting advertising during the broadcasting of games, with gambling ads also banned for an hour each side of a sporting game.

Ten days later, opposition communications spokesman David Coleman asked Albanese in parliament whether he would work with the Coalition to implement Dutton’s proposal.

“We are concerned about gambling ads. I find them, frankly, annoying, as do, I think, most people who are trying to watch the footy,” said Albanese. “… The Coalition had nine years to act to ban ads during sport, but they didn’t. The only reason there are any restrictions on gambling ads during live sport is actions that Labor has taken. We will await the inquiry that looks at a comprehensive response, because that is what is appropriate.”

About six weeks later, Murphy’s committee tabled its report “You win some, you lose more”.

Of the report’s 31 recommendations, unanimously agreed to by the committee’s 10 members, it has been recommendation 26, which called on the federal government to implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling over three years, that has caused the government the biggest headache.

“I don’t think the government understood just how complex this issue was when they referred the issue to the House of Reps inquiry,” one gambling industry representative told The Saturday Paper.

“And I don’t think they really listened when a procession of industry representatives, including from the sporting codes, the television networks and the wagering industry, told the inquiry just how difficult it would be to implement a ban. It was only when they tried to put together the actual legislative response that it became clear that you can’t pull a huge chunk of money out of one part of this ecosystem without upsetting every other part of the system.”

Last December, as Communications Minister Michelle Rowland worked through the government’s response to the inquiry, Murphy died from cancer.

When parliament returned in February this year, five days before the Dunkley byelection to fill the parliamentary vacancy created by Murphy’s death, teal independent Zoe Daniel asked Albanese whether he would honour Murphy’s call for a full ban on gambling ads.

“The government are undertaking relevant consultations, as you would expect us to do, with all stakeholders, including harm reduction advocates and industry,” Albanese told parliament. “I myself have met with people like Tim Costello about these issues, and we’re working through them to make sure that any action doesn’t have unintended consequences, because that’s what good governments do.”

By July 2, the same day Albanese met with the NRL’s Andrew Abdo, the government was ready with a compromise proposal that it shared with all relevant stakeholders under strict confidentiality arrangements.

Instead of a blanket ban on gambling advertising, Rowland proposed a cap of two gambling ads per hour on each channel until 10pm, with a complete ban on gambling ads an hour before and after live sport. Rowland also proposed a blanket ban on betting ads on social media and other digital platforms.

When news of Rowland’s proposal leaked six days later, Albanese refused to support them, telling journalists at a press conference in Parliament House not to “believe everything you read in the paper”, adding that the government would “announce what our preferred solution is when we announce it, so I don’t comment on speculation”.

“I don’t think Michelle was very happy, no,” one Labor adviser says. “My reading of it is that she believes the proposal that went out to stakeholders was a compromise most stakeholders were broadly comfortable with, and that we missed an opportunity to pass a significant reform that was in the public interest. It was an opportunity missed, no question.”

In the weeks that followed, the lobbying effort from all sides of the debate grew more intense. There were further meetings with the NRL’s Andrew Abdo and the Alliance for Gambling Reform’s Tim Costello, among others, in September, and a letter to the PM from the AFL sent on October 1.

Each week that parliament has sat since August, Albanese has faced questions on the issue in the chamber. By the time teal MP Allegra Spender invoked Peta Murphy’s memory in Question Time on Monday to ask the prime minister why he had abandoned a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stop online gambling advertising, Albanese let his frustration show.

“We’ve done more in two years to tackle gambling harms than has been done by any government since Federation. We’ve also made it very clear that the status quo is untenable, but we continue to engage with stakeholders on our response to what is an important issue,” Albanese replied.

“We have established a mandatory customer ID verification for online wagering. We have banned the use of credit cards for online wagering. We have forced online wagering companies to send their customers monthly activity statements outlining wins and losses. We have introduced new evidence-based taglines in wagering advertising. We have provided direct funding for specialist financial counselling to support people affected by problem gambling. We have introduced nationally consistent staff training.”

On Wednesday, the six teal independents joined with Tim Costello, the Australian Council of Social Service and other anti-gambling advocates to condemn Albanese’s failure to bring legislation before the parliament in the final sitting week of the year, and possibly the last sitting week before the next election, which is not due until May but could be called as early as March.

On Thursday, Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie ratcheted up the outrage, branding the government a disgrace for not banning gambling advertising.

“It is absolutely shameful that on a day when the government is trying to push through three dozen bills, they are gagging debate on banning gambling advertising,” Wilkie said. “Why? Because they are gutless and, rather than genuinely progress something in the public interest, they want to push self-serving bills that makes for a tidy headline in preparation for an election. I have not seen a more egregious and shocking abandonment of the public interest than this government’s refusal to implement a ban on gambling advertising.”

Wilkie’s stance, and that of other members or independents, has infuriated members of the Albanese government.

“The PM has made it clear, very clear, about the need to protect against unintended consequences, like [how] free-to-air networks who are already under unprecedented pressure will make up the revenue shortfall, how the sporting codes will make up for the revenue shortfall that has them build out their sports, but this is all apparently irrelevant to the cross bench,” said one senior Labor source. “It’s been frustrating.”

A gambling industry representative also questioned the accuracy of claims by crossbench MPs that a complete ban on gambling ads was something the public genuinely supported.

“The teals keep comparing gambling advertising to banning tobacco ads, but that doesn’t stack up, because while there is no safe level of smoking, there is a safe level of gambling,” the industry source said. “Another point: everyone acknowledges that the biggest source of problem gambling in Australia is poker machines. By a mile. But there are no ads on TV for pokies. A lot of this debate is based on emotion, not hard evidence.”

According to polling conducted by JWS Research in August, which asked voters to consider the government’s proposal to impose restrictions on television and online gambling advertising as a way of reducing harmful gambling, 56 per cent of voters supported a complete ban on gambling advertising on television.

“That’s without the government even trying to argue a position, why that compromise might work,” the industry source told The Saturday Paper. “The government has committed to announcing a response to the Murphy inquiry before the end of the year, and they can announce a response without passing a law, so I don’t think it’s final that nothing will be done this year. The first anniversary of Peta Murphy’s death is next week. It’s still possible that we could see action on this issue.”