Commissioner Kenneth Hayne QC on Monday opened the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

We heard the banks might miss a deadline to provide additional information on misconduct, people who broke confidentiality agreements to give evidence or make submissions will be protected from legal action and that the royal commission doesn't have a lot of time.

Here are the key things we discovered from day one.

We're expected to hear from witnesses soon

We didn't get an exact timetable, but we were told the first public hearings would kick off in about one month.

They will focus on dodgy lending for home and car loans and credit cards, with subjects, times and locations of hearings to be announced closer to the time.

Justice Hayne said hearings may also be held in places other than Melbourne, but no final decision had been made.

"I am conscious of the fact that people affected by our work live in all the states and territories of the Commonwealth," he said.

"One of the many challenges that we have is to deal with that reality in ways that will further the utility of what we are required to do."

The big banks have so many misconduct files to wade through they will miss the commission's latest deadline

Justice Hayne took a swipe at big financial institutions because they had told the royal commission they couldn't meet Tuesday's 4:00pm (AEDT) deadline for additional information on misconduct.

"That a request for details of events of misconduct, as defined in the terms of reference, identified during the last five years cannot be met within the time sought, even though the initial request for that information was made approximately two months ago is itself a matter to which further attention may have to be given," Justice Hayne said.

Experts who the ABC spoke to also agreed the banks were being tardy.

Associate professor Elizabeth Sheedy from the Applied Finance Centre at Macquarie University said she was a little surprised by the delay.

"The thing that mystifies me a little bit is I know that all of the banks have very good databases of risk events," she said.

"They have to because they use it for their risk modelling and they use it for working out their capital requirements. So it doesn't ring true to me that they don't have the information to hand."

Dr Andy Schmulow from the University of Western Australia Law School agreed.

"If they haven't provided an adequate list of the misconduct they've committed, that really is very troubling," he said.

"If they were serious about tackling the misconduct that has been so clearly evident, you would've thought that as a process of their own internal corporate governance, they would've wanted to have a list at their disposal."

People who broke confidentiality agreements to give evidence will be protected from legal action by banks

Justice Hayne warned financial institutions against taking legal action against witnesses, whistle-blowers and members of the public who break confidentiality agreements by giving information to the commission.

"First, the commission would be very likely indeed to exercise its compulsory powers to secure the information in question," he said.

"Second, the very fact that an institution sought to inhibit or prevent the disclosure of the information would excite the closest attention, not only to the lawfulness of that conduct but also what were the institution's motives for seeking to prevent the commission from having that information."

Just as well. Not protecting witnesses would defeat the purpose of holding a royal commission into the banks.

Also, late last week, the big four banks said they would not sue victims of financial misconduct or current or former staff who gave evidence to the commission.

So, there was no point in the commission sticking with its original advice that submissions should not include material which breached confidentiality agreements.

Royal commission doesn't have much time

Sorry, this video has expired ABC News chief economic correspondent Emma Alberici explains the commission's aims and the scope of the mission.

Justice Hayne has to deliver an interim report by the end of September this year and the final report by February 1, 2019.

Senior counsel assisting the commissioner Rowena Orr SC told the hearing staff had been busy since the commission was announced late last year.

The public has a bit to say

So far, more than 385 public submissions have been received online by the royal commission. Of those, 84 per cent relate to misconduct that fell short of community expectations.

The majority of public submissions are from Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales.

We've also been told:

Approximately 49 per cent are related to banking

Approximately 49 per cent are related to banking 18 per cent to superannuation

18 per cent to superannuation 6 per cent to the general insurance market

6 per cent to the general insurance market 6 per cent relate to life insurance and total permanent disability insurance market

But not everyone who has a complaint will get their day at the commission

Justice Hayne told the hearing he understood many people felt wronged and wanted the chance to tell their story but there was not enough time.

"All of the public submissions made and to be made to the commission are very important to the work of the commission," he said.

"But I have to say that the commission will not have time to publicly examine every case of alleged misconduct."

Dr Schmulow said the timeline of the inquiry was, "hopelessly too short and the scope is too narrow".

Ms Sheedy said: "It was the banks who wanted to have a very short royal commission.

"They were the ones who were keen to get it over quickly. But if they're not willing to cooperate with bringing out the information promptly, then the whole thing is going to drag on. I'm not sure it's really in their interests."

And who was the guy who yelled out at the end?

The Australian Financial Review reported Dennis Sgargetta, whose son has been in dispute with the National Australia Bank over a $300,000 home loan, interrupted the hearing at the end after the commissioner said the hearing was adjourned.

"With the utmost respect commissioner, sir, a matter of grave importance," he said.

"Why can the National Australia Bank lie in our courts and then be allowed to get away with it when the ninth divine law clearly tells us we must not lie to each other?"

Justice Hayne did not reply and left the hearing room.