21 There is no provision in the legislation which bears on an appeal pursuant to the Act, s60(1), that expressly empowers the Court to receive additional evidence or implies that the Court has no such power. In these circumstances, consistent with the conclusion of Blow J in Fernando, I conclude that evidence that was not before the respondent may be received in appropriate situations. My expectation is that such situations will be rare indeed. Ordinarily, a court entertaining an appeal by way of rehearing can exercise its appellate powers only if satisfied that there was error on the part of the primary decision-maker. This is because statutory provisions conferring appellate powers, even in the case of an appeal by way of rehearing, are construed on the basis that, unless there is something to indicate otherwise, the power is to be exercised for the correction of error; Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission & Ors (supra), Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ, 203 [14], see also Kirby J, 224 [75]. Error is not demonstrated by putting before the appellate court additional evidence which shows that a primary decision-maker made a decision in ignorance of relevant evidence which was not before that decision-maker; Cleaver v Powell [1979] Tas SR 134, Green v Fletcher [1988] TASSC 4; [1988] Tas R 59 and Webster v White A58/1991.