from the article it seems more like its the reporter being confused. Reading between the lines, the first reports (from the public) were that the bird was an emu but then the RSPCA identified it as a rhea (note there is no actual quote from the RSPCA regarding the bird's identity, just the reporter's interpretation of the situation). Anyone who's ever been the subject of a news article (in print or on film) will know how the reporter screws up whatever you say in a misleading way.
As to the apparently conflicting comments on the origins of the bird, it was the spokespeople for the golf course saying the bird had since been picked up by its owner, and the reporter saying it wasn't known where the bird came from. Not contradictory statements at all - the owner just hadn't been revealed (to the reporter) by the golf course.