The push for a new Canberra coat of arms is gathering momentum, with a report showing the 91-year-old crest is widely viewed as "anachronistic" and "unreflective" of the modern-day ACT.
The Assembly committee inquiring into the city's heraldry handed down its final report on Thursday, recommending the government either adopt a new coat of arms or update the existing emblem.
The government should also heed the "widespread displeasure" with the ACT flag and design a new one, the committee recommended.
Alternative coat of arms designs which featured the ACT's floral emblem, the royal bluebell, and new mammal emblem, the southern brush-tailed rock-wallaby, were presented to the committee as part of the inquiry.
It has been accepted that the existing coat of arms represented only the City of Canberra, meaning the ACT is the only state or territory without an emblem to represent the whole jurisdiction.
However, the committee found the ownership of the arms was a point of contention, which the government should clarify before it starts community consultation on a new or updated emblem.
The 1928-designed crest features a black and white swan - representing Australia's indigenous and non-indigenous populations - as well as a castle, white rose and the Latin phrase for 'For the Queen, the Law, and the People'.
Almost 80 per cent of the 68 submissions to the inquiry supported a new coat of arms, with the "outdated" Canberra city crest not seen to be reflective of the "people, history, geography, fauna and flora of the ACT".
In evidence to the committee, Ivo Ostyn, who designed the ACT flag, said he found the city's coat of arms "irrelevant in many ways".
"A castle! Honestly, a castle, a sword, crown, a mace, a portcullis - are these really symbols of the ACT? I do not think so," Mr Ostyn said.
The committee did hear from opponents of a new arms, who argued the "symbolism" of the existing emblem was "relevant and appropriate" in representing the whole of the ACT.
In his evidence, Australian Monarchist League ACT branch chairman Matthew Sait said the coat of arms remained fit-for-purpose for modern Canberra.
"The most distinct thing about the ACT is that we are the seat of the federal government," he told the committee.
"The arms encapsulate that really well. The territory does indeed exist for The Queen, the law and the people, as the current motto on the arms states."
Brendan Whyte was staunchly opposed to a new emblem, saying a "coat of arms and a flag are not things to be changed willynilly[sic]".
"Calls for presentist political posturing in our territorial symbology shows a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of that symbology," Mr Whyte said.
Those supportive of a new or updated arms put forward a range alternative designs to the committee, with many featuring native flaura and fauna.
The territory's official floral emblem, the royal bluebell, was the most popular design element among supporters, who also advocated for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander symbols to be included.
References to Canberra's geography as well as the three branches of government - the legislative, the executive and the judiciary - were also put forward as possible design features.
The committee also recommended that the Barr government consult with the community on a redesigned ACT flag.
Submissions to the inquiry were heavily critical of the flag, which features a version of Canberra's coat of arms that doesn't include the crest or motto.
Mr Ostyn said he was "very against" using a modified arms in the flag's design, but recalled it was insisted upon by the then-Chief Minister Trevor Kaine.
"I know from a heraldry point of view that it is a total disaster," Mr Ostyn said.
"I think it was a big mistake".
Steven Squires echoed that sentiment.
"The ACT flag already has most of the elements of a great flag in place. It uses the ACT colours blue and gold ... it has the Southern Cross," Mr Squires said.
"However, the design has one mistake, which mars a potentially great symbol: the overly complex modified Canberra coat of arms."