Oh dear.... here we go again...! This subject has been discussed a number of times on this forum and a search will find much of this has been said before.
There is NO requirement to read back "information" or "the cancellation of a restriction". Althought the preamble says "information" there is no detail of what is regarded as information. There is certainly no requirement to read every full stop back, so you have to work out what is information that may need a read back. I don't read back any information and have never been chased for it. It is clearly not needed.
Yet, so many pilots read back items in both categories and in many cases (such as DN) the controllers seek read backs for various reasons, one of which is the others do it so why not you?
One should not have to define what is "information" as it is far too broard to define. One example would be traffic info, but there are many, many others. The position or time/place to change frequency is also NOT a read back... just the frequency!
Now to the old "visual approach" read back. It is NOT REQUIRED.
The advice to make a visual approach is the cancellation of a restriction (usually a level) - what would be the default position if you did not do it... cruise over the aerodrome?? It goes in the same bag as "cancel SID/STAR". Such advice etc is normally associated with other instructions which in themselves require a read back, such as heading or frequency etc. "Leave control area on descent" is another one - Not required.
A bit of common sense is required most of the time, but seems it is not that common in relation to read backs.
At the 1997 review of RTF phrases which introduced read backs to a new height, it was said that if the AIP was not clear then the default position of those that did not read/understand it or perhaps did not care, would be to read it all back... Sadly the AIP was not written as the review group suggested, and many it seems just read it all back without thinking...
The trouble is that now many instructors and training pilots have been "taught" by those that don't know either and even now much of the training material has errors which are not challenged.
Those in CASA that were involved have moved on and it seems there is very little corporate history on this subject. There is certainly no sign of any attempt to make good the original intent.
Let the discussion continue...
An old example:
"ABC turn left 010 for a pilot intercept of the runway 34L LLZ, descend to 2000, when established on the VASI make visual approach, call tower 120.5"
What would you read back?????