"It's an important prize," she said. "It should go ahead. I'm not outraged... but I see all these prescriptions and I see that my own work transgresses them. If you look at my writing, it's personal and political. It's lyrical. It's about people who aren't me.

"The issues they're identifying are issues I'm grappling with in my work all the time. How far do you go when you have that kind of power to express something about someone else? As the situation as played out, I just can't be the face of that prize anymore."

On Monday, The Saturday Paper's editor Erik Jensen said the "restrictive" guidelines had been removed. He added the rules shouldn't have been included in the first place.

"The Horne Prize will be re-opened to entrants for a further month with no restrictions on eligibility," he said. "Writers who have already entered will be able to resubmit, or submit new essays, if they wish. All essays will be judged equally.

"Neither the proprietor of The Saturday Paper, Morry Schwartz, nor the judges were aware of the guidelines. Anna Funder and David Marr disagreed with the restrictions that were present in the guidelines and have chosen not to continue as judges."

Previous winner Spargo-Ryan said she hoped the debate over this year's Horne Prize would help writers consider why they're the best person to tackle a certain topic.

"Instead of saying it's not fair that I can't write about whatever I want to, why don't we say: what can I learn from someone else's writing?" she said. "Hopefully this conversation makes us reflect on why we prioritise our own need to be loud."