@lapis@elekk.xyz ah i think i can help answer this
a handshake deal is something where most of the time, you are expected to treat it equivalent to an actual deal.
the problem is that it's incredibly easy to exploit if you do one in bad faith, because the idea is that you shake on it, it's agreed, and the verbal contract is as good as a written one. sometimes (often nowadays with people who are wise to this), a handshake deal is a prelude to the real deal being made on paper. the agreement is made, you just need the office to finish drawing up the paperwork and then it gets signed later and everything's copacetic.
but. like any contract that is verbal, it is... legally a bit ephemeral. you can legally enforce a verbal contract but as you can imagine it takes a hell of a lot more work to actually show that agreement happened (usually a recording etc). meanwhile, the contract on paper is the contract on paper because... it's your literal paper trail. it's much easier to produce a paper that both people have signed as evidence that an arrangement was made, than to say "we had a conversation and we both agreed". it also makes it a lot easier to refer back to the contract, too.
now there is i think definitely an element of honor that creeps in on a cultural level. the idea of a handshake deal being a handshake is, on some level, "we are both honorable people and not out to screw each other and therefore our handshake is as good as a written contract." if you ask for a written contract, it sometimes hits as "well sure i trust you enough to shake your hand, but i don't trust you THAT much." and if you're going in to the deal with 100% good faith, people can take that as having their honor questioned in a way. there's also some cultural baggage of "we don't need to get the government into this" at play, too - like it really is more fuss and bother to get a written contract, to go down to the notary public and get those signatures notarized yada yada yada. it's the additional cost of getting lawyers involved, basically. so not only is it the perceived insult of "you don't think my word is my bond? you don't think i really mean it when i shake your hand and say we have a deal? you want a piece of paper because you don't trust me like that??", it's also "you don't trust me enough to settle this between ourselves, and instead you want lawyers and all to be the ones enforcing it????".
it's almost like how some people get offended by a pre-nup. because they're going into the marriage with the idea it will absolutely be forever, and if you plan too much about what's going to happen when it's over, it can feel like the other person is not committing to you on the same level (or is even one foot out the door). it's "i'm trusting you that this agreement is for real. why aren't you trusting ME that this agreement is for real?".
so in this case, thankfully, those bad feelings didn't happen!
instead it was two people who came to essentially a verbal contract and decided that they have an agreement and they trust each other enough to have it be just a handshake deal. the refusing to sign could have been "i am planning to be dodgy", but in this case, i think that it was more "let me prove to you that i am trustworthy enough and take this seriously enough that you don't need my signature. my word is my bond and it's just as good."
the other guy who wasn't a celebrity was probably sitting there going "okay, this isn't ideal. i would really like a signature for full legal protection. however, a handshake is way better than nothing and no deal at all, so i'll take it." if i'm getting the vibe of the conversation right, it's because his side of the agreement had a lot less power in the situation than McConaughey.
(i'll even speculate that he perhaps knew he couldn't actually make a legal contract. to have a contract, you need both an agreement, and consideration. in other words, it can't be just "you stay out of Australia for a year." there has to be some consideration - something of monetary value - in exchange for the agreed-upon action. it can't be just one-sided. it would need to be "you stay out of Australia for a year, and in return i do this." without consideration, if that contract - even signed! - goes to court, it would have the courts going "there was not a real contract here so whatever you all agreed to doesn't fucking matter, there was never a proper agreement in the first place".)
so basically one side had no real way to enforce 'stay out of Australia', and nothing they could really strong-arm him with to sign the contract (especially if they knew it wouldn't be a real contract). in that case, a handshake really is better than nothing. if McConaughey was going to screw them over, then he was going to screw them over regardless. so why not make it about an honorable handshake when that's kinda the only thing you can do about such a thing?
in this case, the australian gent was doing a big social-and-legal trust fall. they didn't really have a way to breach their side of things - they just had to sit tight and see if McConaughey would follow through. and McConaughey did! so all is well and the handshake agreement becomes proof of honor on both sides, basically.