I took them from the Group Consolidated Accounts under "Staff Expenses" or "Employee Expenses". All these expenses are pre tax (from the company's point of view) but include superannuation or provident fund expenses or their equivalent for each country. The figures are thus what each employee costs to the airline (this would include allowances, training programmes, superannuation etc), and do not represent the take home pay of each individual employee.
From the employee's point of view of course not the entire amount goes to them in their take home pay. Australia's superannuation is 9%, Singapore's is 16% etc. From a disposable income point of view, the average SQ employee on say SGD100,000 would have more post-tax income plus superannuation than the average QF employee on AUD100,000.
All in all there are a large number of factors that influence the costs of operating an airline including wage costs. EK can pay staff 30-40% lower than QF because there is no income tax in the UAE, resulting in staff having the same or even slightly more disposable income.
QF may complain that Australia is in a poor position for air travel being an end of the road country. But Australia is in a prime position to export minerals to China, compared to say Brazil which is too far away. As such, QF's complaints about their disadvantaged geography would be the same as Vale complaining they can't complete with BHP because Brazil is disadvantaged geographically.